{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36767/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36767","id":"gutenberg_36767","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36767","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Charlene Taylor, Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe,\nMary Meehan and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team\nat http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                   THE CRADLE OF THE CHRIST.\n\n               A STUDY IN PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.\n\n                BY OCTAVIUS BROOKS FROTHINGHAM.\n\n\n    NEW YORK:\n    G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS.\n    182 FIFTH AVENUE.\n    1877.\n\n    COPYRIGHT,\n    G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS.\n    1877.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe literary intention of this volume is sufficiently declared in the\nopening paragraph, and need not be foreshadowed in a preface; but as the\nauthor's deeper motive may be called in question, he takes the liberty\nto say a word or two in more particular explanation. The thought has\noccurred to him on reading over what he has written, as a casual reader\nmight, that, in his solicitude to make his positions perfectly clear,\nand to state his points concisely, he may have laid himself open to the\ncharge of carrying on a controversy under the pretence of explaining a\nliterature. Such a reproach, his heart tells him, would be undeserved.\nHe disclaims all purpose and desire to weaken the moral supports of any\nform of religion; as little purpose or desire to undermine Christianity,\nas to revive Judaism. It is his honest belief that no genuine interests\nof religion are compromised by scientific or literary studies; that\nreligion is independent of history, that Christianity is independent of\nthe New Testament. He is cordially persuaded that the admission of\nevery one of his conclusions would leave the institutions of the church\nprecisely, in every spiritual respect, as they are; and in thus\ndeclaring he has no mental reserve, no misty philosophical meaning that\npreserves expressions while destroying ideas; he uses candid,\nintelligible speech. The lily's perfect charm suffers no abatement from\nthe chemist's analysis of the slime into which it strikes its slender\nroot; the grape of the Johannisberg vineyards is no less luscious from\nthe fact that the soil has been subjected to the microscope; the fine\nqualities of the human being, man or woman, are the same on any theory,\nthe bible theory of the perfect Adam, or Darwin's of the anthropoid ape.\nThe hero is hero still, and the saint saint, whatever his ancestry. We\nreject the inference of writers like Godfrey Higgins, Thomas Inman, and\nJules Soury, who would persuade us that Christianity must be a form of\nnature-worship, because nature-worship was a large constituent element\nin the faiths from which it sprung; why should we not reject the\ninference of those who would persuade us that Christianity is doomed\nbecause the four gospels are pronounced ungenuine? Christianity is a\nhistorical fact; an institution; it stands upon its merits, and must\njustify its merits by its performances; first demonstrating its power,\nafterward pressing its claim; vindicating its title to exist by its\ncapacity to meet the actual conditions of existence, and then asking\nrespect the ground of good service. The church that arrogates for itself\nthe right to control the spiritual concerns of the modern world must not\nplead in justification of its pretension that it satisfied the\nrequirements of devout people of another hemisphere, two thousand years\nago. The religion that fails to represent the religious sentiments of\nliving men will not support itself by demonstrating the genuineness of\nthe New Testament, the supernatural birth of Jesus, or the inspiration\nof Paul. Other questions than these are asked now. When a serious man\nwishes to know what Christianity has to say in regard to the position of\nwoman in modern society, a quotation from a letter to the christians in\nthe Greek city of Corinth, is not a satisfactory reply. Christianity\nmust prove its adaptation to the hour that now is; its adaptation to\ndays gone by, is not to the purpose.\n\nThe church of Rome had a glimpse of this, and revealed it when it took\nthe ground that the New Testament did not contain the whole revelation;\nthat the source of inspiration lay behind that, used that as one of its\nmanifestations, and constantly supplied new suggestions as they were\nneeded. Cardinal Wiseman did not hesitate to admit that the doctrine of\ntrinity was not stated in the New Testament, though undoubtedly a belief\nof the church. It would have been but a step further in the same\ndirection, if Dr. Newman should declare that the critics might have\ntheir way with the early records of the religion, which, however curious\nas literary remains, were not essential to the constitution or the work\nof the church. Strauss and Renan may speculate and welcome; the mission\nof the church being to bless mankind, their labors are innocent. A\nchurch that does not bless mankind cannot be saved by Auguste Nicolas; a\nchurch that does bless mankind cannot be injured by Ernest Renan.\n\nLeading protestant minds, without making so much concession as the\nchurch of Rome, have practically accepted the position here maintained.\nIt is becoming less common, every day, to base the claims of\nChristianity on the New Testament. The most learned, earnest, and\nintelligent commend their faith on its reasonableness, confronting\nmodern problems in a modern way. St. George Mivart quotes no scripture\nagainst the doctrine of evolution. No one reading Dr. McCosh on the\ndevelopment hypothesis, would suppose him to be a believer in the\ninspiration of the bible. He reasons like a reasonable man, meeting\nargument with argument, feeling disposed to confront facts with\nsomething harder than texts. The well instructed christian, if he enters\nthe arena of scientific discussion at all, uses scientific weapons, and\nfollows the rules of scientific warfare. The problems laid before the\nmodern world are new; scarcely one of them was propounded during the\nfirst two centuries of our era; not one was propounded in modern terms.\nThe most universal of them, like poverty, vice, the relations of the\nstrong and the weak, present an aspect which neither church, Father, nor\nApostle would recognize. Whatever bearing Christianity has on these\nquestions must be timely if it is to be efficacious.\n\nThe doctrine of christian development, as it is held now by\ndistinguished teachers of the christian church, implying as it does\nincompleteness and therefore defect in the antecedent stages of progress\npoints clearly to the apostolic and post apostolic times as ages of\nrudimental experience, tentative and crude. Why should not the\nentertainers of this doctrine calmly surrender the records and remains\nof the preparatory generations to antiquarian scholars who are willing\nto investigate their character? No discovery they can make will alter\nthe results which the centuries have matured. They will simply more\nclearly exhibit the process whereby the results have been reached.\n\nWe may go further than this, and maintain that the unreserved\nabandonment to criticism of the literature and men of the early epochs\nwould be a positive advantage to Christianity, for thereby the religion\nwould be relieved from a serious embarrassment. The duty, assumed by\nchristians, of vindicating the truth of whatever is found in the New\nTestament imposes grave difficulties. It is safe to say that a very\nlarge part of the disbelief in Christianity proceeds from doubts raised\nby Strauss, Renan, and others who have cast discredit on some portions\nof this literature. Christians have their faith shaken by those authors;\nand doubtless some who are not christians are prejudiced against the\nreligion by books of rational criticism. The romanist, failing to\nestablish by the New Testament, or by the history of the first two\ncenturies, the primacy of Peter, the supremacy of Rome, the validity of\nthe sacraments, the divine sanction of the episcopacy, loses the convert\nwhom the majestic order of the papacy might attract. The protestant,\nfailing to prove by apostolic texts his cardinal dogmas,\npre-destination, atonement, election, must see depart unsatisfied, the\ninquirer whom a philosophical exposition might have won. The necessity\nof justifying the account of the miraculous birth of Jesus repels the\ndoubter whom a purely intellectual conception of incarnation might have\nfascinated; and the obligation to believe the story of a physical\nresurrection is an added obstacle to the reception of a spiritual faith\nin immortality. Scholarship has so effectually shown the impossibility\nof bringing apostolical guarantee for the creed of christendom, that the\ncreed cannot get even common justice done it while it compromises itself\nwith the beliefs of the primitive church. The inspiration of the New\nTestament is an article that unsettles. Naturally it is the first point\nof attack, and its extreme vulnerability raises a suspicion of weakness\nin the whole system. The protestant theology, as held by the more\nenlightened minds, is capable of philosophical statement and defence;\nbut it cannot be stated in New Testament language, or defended on\napostolical authority. The creed really has not a fair chance to be\nappreciated. Its power to uphold spiritual ideas, and develop spiritual\ntruths; its speculative resources as an antagonist of scientific\nmaterialism, animal fatalism, and sensualism, are rendered all but\nuseless. Powerful minds are fettered, and good scholarship is wasted in\nthe attempt to identify beginnings with results, roots with fruits.\n\nThis is a consideration of much weight. When we remember how much time\nand concern are given to the study of the New Testament for\ncontroversial or apologetic purposes, to establish its genuineness,\nmaintain its authority, justify its miracles, explain away its\ndifficulties, reconcile its contradictions, harmonize its differences,\nread into its texts the thoughts of later generations, and then reflect\non the lack of mind bestowed on the important task of recommending\nreligious ideas to a world that is spending enormous sums of\nintellectual force on the problems of physical science and the arts of\nmaterial civilization, the close association of the latest with the\nearliest faith seems a deplorable misfortune. If there ever was a time\nwhen the purely spiritual elements in the religion of the foremost races\nof mankind should be developed and pressed, the time is now; and to miss\nthe opportunity by misplacing the energy that would redeem it is\nanything but consoling to earnest minds.\n\nThus might reason a full believer in the creed of christendom, a devoted\nmember of the church; Greek, Roman, German, English. The man of letters\nviewing the situation from his own point, will, of course, feel less\nintensely the mischiefs entailed by the error; but the error will be to\nhim no less evident. It is sometimes, in war, an advantage to lose\noutworks that cannot be defended without fatally weakening the line,\ndrawing the strength of the garrison away from vulnerable points, and\nexposing the centre to formidable assault. The present writer, though no\nfriend to the christian system, believes himself to be a friend of\nspiritual beliefs, and would gladly feel that he is, by his essay,\nrather strengthening than weakening the cause of faith, by whatever\nclass of men maintained.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nI. FALSE POSITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nII. THE MESSIAH.\n\nIII. THE SECTS.\n\nIV. THE MESSIAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nV. THE FIRST CHRISTIANS.\n\nVI. PAUL'S NEW DEPARTURE.\n\nVII. THE LAST GOSPEL.\n\nVIII. THE WESTERN CHURCH.\n\nIX. JESUS.\n\nAUTHORITIES.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nFALSE POSITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nThe original purpose of this little volume was to indicate the place of\nthe New Testament in the literature of the Hebrew people, to show in\nfact how it is comprehended in the scope of that literature. The plan\nhas been widened to satisfy the demands of a larger class of readers,\nand to record more fully the work of its leading idea. Still the\nconsideration of the New Testament literature is of primary importance.\nThe writer submits that the New Testament is to be received as a natural\nproduct of the Hebrew genius, its contents attesting the creative power\nof the Jewish mind. He hopes to make it seem probable to unprejudiced\npeople, that its different books merely carry to the last point of\nattenuation, and finally exhaust the capacity of ideas that exerted a\ncontrolling influence on the development of that branch of the human\nfamily. To profundity of research, or originality of conclusion, he\nmakes no claim. He simply records in compact and summary form, the\nresults of reading and reflection, gathered in the course of many years,\nkept in note books, revised year by year, tested by use in oral\ninstruction, and reduced to system by often repeated manipulation. The\nresemblance of his views, in certain particulars, to those set forth by\nGerman critics of the school of Strauss or of Baur, he is at no pains to\nconceal. His deep indebtedness to them, he delights to confess. At the\nsame time he can honestly say that he is a disciple of no special\nschool, writes in the interest of no theory or group of theories, but\nsimply desires to establish a point of literary consequence. All polemic\nor dogmatical intention he disavows, all disposition to lower the\ndignity, impair the validity, or weaken the spiritual supports of\nChristianity. His aim, truly and soberly speaking, is to set certain\nliterary facts in their just relation to one another.\n\nIt has not been customary, nor is it now customary to assign to the New\nTestament a place among the literary productions of the human mind. The\ncollection of books bearing that name has been, and still is regarded by\nadvocates of one or another theory of inspiration, as of exceptional\norigin, in that they express the divine, not the human mind; being\nwritings super-human in substance if not in form, containing thoughts\nthat could not have occurred to the unaided intelligence of man, neither\nare amenable to the judgment of uninspired reason. To read this volume\nas other volumes are read is forbidden; to apply to it ordinary\ncritical methods is held to be an impertinence; to detect errors or\nflaws in it, as in Homer, Plato, Thucydides, is pronounced an\nunpardonable arrogance. A book that contains revelations of the supreme\nwisdom and will must be accepted and revered, must not be arraigned.\n\nCriticism has therefore, among believers chiefly we may almost say\nsolely, been occupied with the task of establishing the genuineness and\nauthenticity of the writings, harmonizing their teachings, arranging\ntheir contents, explaining texts in accordance with the preconceived\ntheory of a divine origin, vindicating doubtful passages against the\nobjections of skeptics, and extracting from chapter and verse the sense\nrequired by the creed. Literature has been permitted to illustrate or\nconfirm points, but has not been called in to correct, for that would be\nto judge the infinite by the finite mind.\n\nIn accordance with this accepted view of the New Testament as a\nmiraculous book, students of it have fallen into the way of surveying it\nas a detached field, unconnected by organic elements with the\nsurrounding territory of mind; have examined it as if it made no part of\nan extensive geological formation, as men formerly took up an aerolite\nor measured a boulder. The materials of knowledge respecting the book\nhave been sought within the volume itself, neither Greek, Roman, German\nnor Englishman presuming to think that a beam from the outside world\ncould illumine a book\n\n    Which gives a light to every age,\n    Which gives, but borrows none.\n\nThe rationalists it is needless to say, avoided this error, but they\nbetrayed a sense of the peril arising from it, in the polemical spirit\nthat characterized much of their writing. In Germany, the tone of\nrationalism was more sober and scientific than elsewhere, because\nbiblical questions were there discussed in the scholastic seclusion of\nthe University, in lectures delivered by learned professors to students\nengaged in pursuits purely intellectual. The lectures were not addressed\nto an excitable multitude, as such discourses are, to a certain extent,\nin France or England, and particularly in America, and consequently\nstirred no religious passions. The books published were read by a small\nclass of specialists who studied them as they would treatises in any\nother department of ancient literature. Nearly half a century ago the\ndisbelief in miracles, portents, and supernatural interventions, was\nentertained and published by German university professors; stories of\nprodigies were discredited on the general ground of their incredibility,\nand the books that reported them were set down as untrustworthy,\nwhatever might be the evidence of their genuineness. A miraculous\nnarrative was on the face of it unauthentic. Efforts were accordingly\nmade to bring the New Testament writings within the categories of\nliterature. Criticism began the task by applying rules of \"natural\"\ninterpretation to the legendary portions, thus abolishing the\nsupernatural peculiarity and leaving the merely human parts to justify\nthemselves. The method was the best that offered, but it was\nunscientific; \"unnaturally natural;\" confused from the necessity of\nsupplementing knowledge by conjecture, and faulty through the amount of\narbitrary supposition that had to be introduced. Attention was directed\nto the historical or biographical aspect of the books, and only\nincidentally to their literary character, as productions of their age.\n\nThe method pursued by Strauss was strictly scientific and literary,\nthough on the surface it seemed to be concerned with biographical\ndetails. By treating the narratives of miracles as mythical rather than\nas legendary, as intellectual and dogmatic rather than as fanciful or\nimaginary creations, and by tracing their origin to the traditionary\nbeliefs of the Old Testament, he ran both literatures together as one,\nshowing the new to be a continuation or reproduction of the old. The\nconstruction, otherwise, of the New Testament literature concerned him\nbut incidentally. The first \"Life of Jesus,\" published in part in 1835,\nwas devoted to the discussion of the gospels as books of history. The\nsecond--a revision--was published in 1864, contained a much larger\nproportion of literary matter in the form of documentary discussion,\nmade frequent references to Baur, and other writers of the Tuebingen\nSchool, and attached great weight to their conclusions. In the \"Old and\nthe New Faith,\" published nearly ten years later, the main conclusions\nof Baur are adopted as the legitimate issue of literary criticism,\nthough without attempt at formal reconciliation with his own original\nview.\n\nBaur's method was original with himself. He finds the key to the secret\nof the composition of the first three Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles\nand portions of other books, in the quarrel between Paul and Peter\nfeelingly described in the second chapter of the letter to the\nGalatians. The \"synoptical\" Gospels, he contends, and with singular\ningenuity argues, are the results of that controversy between the broad\nand the narrow churches; are not, therefore, writings of historical\nvalue or biographical moment, but books of a doctrinal character, not\ncontroversial or polemical,--mediatorial and conciliatory rather than\naggressive,--but written in a controversial interest, and intelligible\nonly when read by a controversial light. Baur called his the\n\"historical\" method, as distinguished from the dogmatical, the textual,\nthe negative; because his starting point was a historical fact, namely,\nthe actual dispute recorded, in language of passionate earnestness, by\none of the parties to it, and distinctly confessed in the attitude of\nthe other. But Baur's method has a still better title to be called\nliterary, for it is concerned with the literary composition of the New\nTestament writings, and with the dispute as accounting for their\nexistence and form. His studies on the fourth Gospel, and on the life\nand writings of the Apostle Paul, are admirable examples of the\nunprejudiced literary method; by far the most intelligent, comprehensive\nand consistent ever made; simply invaluable in their kind. They contain\nall that is necessary for a complete _rationale_ of the New Testament\nliterature. These, taken in connection with his \"History of the\nFirst Three Centuries,\" his \"Origin of the Episcopate,\" his\n\"Dogmengeschichte,\" put the patient and attentive student in possession\nof the full case. But Baur lacked constructive talent of a high order,\nand has been less successful than inferior men in embracing details in a\nwide generalization.\n\nRenan adopts the method of the early rationalists, but applies it with a\nfreedom and facility of which they were incapable. He takes up the\nGospels as history, and sifts the literature in order to get at the\nhistory. He claims to possess the historical sense, by virtue of which\nhe is able to separate the genuine from the ungenuine portions of the\nGospels. It is a point with him to show how the character of Jesus was\nmoulded by the spirit of his age, and by the literature on which he was\nnurtured; but his treatment of the evangelical narratives as a mass of\nbiographical notes reflecting, with more or less correctness, the\npersonality of Jesus, is not quite compatible with a rational or even a\nliterary treatment of them as a continuation of the traditions of the\nHebrew people. The constructive force being centred in Jesus himself,\nthe full recognition of the creative genius of the Hebrew mind, which\nwas illustrated in Jesus and his age, was precluded. Renan is in a\nmeasure compelled to make Jesus a prodigy--an exceptional person, who\nbaffles ordinary standards of judgment; and in so doing distorts the\nconnection between him, the generations that went before, and the\ngenerations that came after. Strauss does more justice to the New\nTestament literature, in attempting only its partial explanation. Baur\ndoes more justice to it in seeking a literary explanation of the\nwritings as they are. Renan picks and chooses according to our arbitrary\ncriterion, which capriciously disports itself over a field covered with\npromiscuous treasures.\n\nLord Amberley's more recent attempt reveals the weakness of the common\nprocedure. Without the learning of Strauss, the perspicacity of Baur, or\nthe brilliant audacity of Renan, he strays over the field, making\nsuggestions neither profound nor original, and rather obliterating the\ndistinct impressions his predecessors have made than making new ones of\nhis own. His chapter on Jesus will illustrate the confusion that must\nissue from a false method, which does not deserve to be called a method\nat all.\n\nBooks have been written about the New Testament by the\nthousand--libraries of books; but they merely supplant and refute one\nanother. Each is entitled to as much consideration as the rest, and to\nno more. The old materials are turned over and over; the texts are\nsubjected to new cross-examinations; the chapters and incidents are\nshuffled about with fresh ingenuity; new suppositions are started; new\ncombinations are made; but all with no satisfactory result. Whether it\nbe Auguste Nicolas, who reconstructs the Gospels to justify the\npredispositions of Romanism; or Edmond de Pressense, who does the same\nservice for liberal Protestantism; or Henry Ward Beecher, who constructs\na Christ out of the elements of an exuberant fancy; or William Henry\nFurness, who is certain that \"naturalness\" furnishes the touchstone of\nhistorical truth; the conclusion is about equally inconclusive.\n\nThe literary method avoids the dogmatical embarrassments incident to the\nsupernatural theory; offers easy solutions of difficult problems;\nconnects incidents with their antecedents; interprets dark sayings by\nthe light of association; and places fragments in the places where they\nbelong. An exhaustive application of this treatment would probably\nexplain every passage in the New Testament writings. A partial\napplication of it like the present will indicate at least some of the\ncapacities of the method.\n\nThe literary treatment differs from the dogmatical represented by the\nolder theologians who used the New Testament as a text book of doctrine;\nfrom the purely exegetical or critical, which consisted in the impartial\nexamination of its separate parts; from the destructive or decomposing\ntreatment pursued by the so-called \"rationalism;\" and from the\n\"historical,\" as employed by Baur and the \"Tuebingen school.\" It is in\nsome respects more comprehensive and positive than either of these,\nwhile in special points it adopts all but the first. Every other method\npresents a controversial face, and is something less than scientific, by\nbeing to a certain degree inhospitable. This consults only the laws\nwhich preside over the literary expression given to human thoughts.\n\nIt has been customary with christians to widen as much as possible the\ngulf between the Old and the New Testaments, in order that Christianity\nmight appear in the light of a fresh and transcendent revelation,\nsupplementing the ancient, but supplanting it. The most favorable view\nof the Old Testament regards it as a porch to the new edifice, a\ncollection of types and foregleams of a grandeur about to follow. The\nOld Testament has been and still is held to be preparatory to the New;\nMoses is the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. The contrast of Law\nwith Gospel, Commandment with Beatitude, Justice with Love, has been\npresented in every form. Christian teachers have delighted to exhibit\nthe essential superiority of Christianity to Judaism, have quoted with\ntriumph the maxims that fell from the lips of Jesus, and which, they\nsurmised, could not be paralleled in the elder Scriptures, and have put\nthe least favorable construction on such passages in the ancient books\nas seemed to contain the thoughts of evangelists and apostles. A more\ningenuous study of the Hebrew Law, according to the oldest traditions,\nas well as its later interpretations by the prophets, reduces these\ndifferences materially by bringing into relief sentiments and precepts\nwhereof the New Testament morality is but an echo. There are passages in\nExodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, even tenderer in their humanity than\nanything in the gospels. The preacher from the Mount, the prophet of the\nBeatitudes, does but repeat with persuasive lips what the law-givers of\nhis race proclaimed in mighty tones of command. Such an acquaintance\nwith the later literature of the Jews as is readily obtained now from\npopular sources, will convince the ordinarily fair mind that the\noriginality of the New Testament has been greatly over-estimated. Even a\nhasty reading of easily accessible books, makes it clear that Jesus and\nhis disciples were Jews in mind and character as well as by country and\nrace; and will render it at least doubtful whether they ever outgrew\nthe traditions of their birth. Paul's claim to be a Hebrew of the\nHebrews, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, \"circumcised the eighth day, of\nthe stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin,\" is found to be more than\njustified by his writings; and even John's exalted spirituality proves\nto be an aroma from a literature which Christianity disavows. The\nphrases \"Redemption,\" \"Grace,\" \"Faith,\" \"Baptism,\" \"Salvation,\"\n\"Regeneration,\" \"Son of Man,\" \"Son of God,\" \"Kingdom of Heaven,\" are\nnative to this literature, and as familiar there as in gospel or\nepistle. The symbolism of the Apocalypse, Jewish throughout, with its\nNew Jerusalem, its consecration of the number twelve,--twelve\nfoundations, twelve gates, twelve stars, twelve angels,--points to\ndeeper correspondences that do not meet the eye, but occur to\nreflection. We remember that the New Testament constantly refers to the\nOld; that great stress is laid on the fulfilment of ancient prophecies;\nthat Jesus explicitly declares, at the opening of his ministry, that he\ncame not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to reaffirm and\ncomplete them, saying with earnest force \"till heaven and earth pass,\nnot one jot or tittle shall in any wise pass from the law until all be\nfulfilled.\" We discover that his criticisms bore hard on the casuists\nwho corrupted the law by their glosses, but were made in the interest of\nthe original commandment, which had been caricatured. In a word, so\ncompletely is the space between the old dispensation and the new bridged\nover, that the most delicate and fragile fancies, the lightest imagery,\nthe daintiest fabrics of the intellectual world are transported without\nrent or fracture, across the gulf opened by the captivity, and the\ndeserts caused by the desolating quarrels that attended the new attempts\nat reconstruction, while the massive ideas that lie at the foundation of\nHebraic thought, wherever found, are landed without risk or confusion in\nthe new territory. Between the Jewish and the Christian scriptures there\nis not so much as a blank leaf.\n\nIf this can be made apparent without over-stating the facts, everything\nin the New Testament, from the character of Jesus, and the constitution\nof the primitive church, to the later development by Paul, and the\nlatest by John, must be subjected to a revision, which though fatal to\nChristianity's claim to be a special revelation, will restore dignity to\nthe Semitic character, and consistency to the development of historic\ntruth. Better still, it will heal the breach between two great\nreligions, and will contribute to that disarmament of faiths from which\ngood hearts anticipate most important results. Of all this hints only\ncan be given in a short essay like this; but if the hints are suggestive\nin themselves or from their arrangement, a service will be rendered to\nthe cause of truth that may deserve recognition.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nTHE MESSIAH.\n\n\nThe period of the captivity in Babylon, which is commonly regarded as a\nperiod of sadness and desolation, a blank space of interruption in the\nnation's life, was, in reality, a period of intense mental activity;\nprobably the highest spiritual moment in the history of the people.\nDispossessed of their own territory, relieved of the burden and freed\nfrom the distraction of politics, their disintegrating tribal feuds\nterminated by foreign conquest, living, as unoppressed exiles, in one of\nthe world's greatest cities, with opportunities for observation and\nreflection never enjoyed before, having unbroken leisure in the midst of\nmaterial and intellectual opulence, the true children of Israel devoted\nthemselves to the task of rebuilding spiritually the state that had been\npolitically overthrown. The writings that reflect this period,\nparticularly the later portions of Isaiah, exhibit the soul of the\nnation in proud resistance against the unbelief, the disloyalty, the\nworldliness, that were demoralizing the less noble part of their\ncountrymen. The duty was laid on them to support the national\ncharacter, revive the national faith, restore the national courage, and\nrebuild the national purpose. To this end they collected the traditions\nof past glory, gathered up the fragments of legend and song, reanimated\nthe souls of their heroes and saints, developed ideas that existed only\nin germ, arranged narratives and legislation, and constructed an ideal\nstate. There is reason to believe that the real genius of the people was\nfirst called into full exercise, and put on its career of development at\nthis time; that Babylon was a forcing nursery, not a prison cell;\ncreating instead of stifling a nation. The astonishing outburst of\nintellectual and moral energy that accompanied the return from the\nBabylonish captivity attests the spiritual activity of that \"mysterious\nand momentous\" time. When the hour of deliverance struck, the company of\ndefeated, disheartened, crushed, to all seeming, \"reckless, lawless,\ngodless\" exiles came forth \"transformed into a band of puritans.\" The\nbooks that remain from those generations, Daniel, the Maccabees, Esdras,\nare charged with an impetuous eloquence and a frenzied zeal.\n\nThe Talmud, that vast treasury of speculation on divine things, had its\norigin about this period. Recent researches into that wilderness of\nthought reveal wonders and beauties that were never till recently\ndivulged. The deepest insights, the most bewildering fancies, exist\nthere side by side. The intellectual powers of a race exhausted\nthemselves in efforts to penetrate the mysteries of faith. The fragments\nof national literature that had been rescued from oblivion, were\npondered over, scrutinized, arranged, classified, with a superstitious\nveneration that would not be satisfied till all the possibilities of\ninterpretation had been tried. The command to \"search the scriptures\"\nfor in them were the words of eternal life, was accepted and faithfully\nobeyed. \"The Talmud\" says Emanuel Deutsch, \"is more than a book of laws,\nit is a microcosm, embracing, even as does the Bible, heaven and earth.\nIt is as if all the prose and poetry, the science, the faith and\nspeculation of the old world were, though only in faint reflections,\nbound up in it _in nuce_.\" The theme of discussion, conjecture,\nspeculation, allegory was, from first to last, the same,--the relation\nbetween Jehovah and his people, the nature and conditions of salvation,\nthe purport of the law, the bearing of the promises. The entire field of\ninvestigation was open, reaching all the way from the number of words in\nthe Bible to the secret of infinite being. No passage was left unexposed\nwith all the keenness that faith aided by culture could supply; and when\nreason reached the end of its tether, fancy took up the work and\nthreaded with unwearied industry the mazes of allegory.\n\nAmong the problems that challenged solution was the one touching the\nMessiah, his attributes and offices, his nature and his kingdom. This\ntheme had inexhaustible capacities and infinite attraction, for it was\nbut another form of the theme of national deliverance which was\nuppermost in the Hebrew mind.\n\nThe history of the Messianic idea is involved in the obscurity that\nclouds the early history of Israel; and this again is embarrassed with\nthe extreme difficulty of deciding the antiquity of the Hebrew\nscriptures. At what moment was Israel fully persuaded of its\nprovidential destiny? That is the question. For the germs of the\nMessianic idea were contained in the bosom of that persuasion. That the\nidea was slow in forming must be conceded under any estimate of its\nantiquity; for its development depended on the experiences of the\nnation, and these experiences underwent in history numerous and violent\nfluctuations. The hope of a deliverer came with the felt need of\ndeliverance, and the consciousness of this need grew with the soreness\nof the calamity under which the nation groaned, as the character of it\nwas determined by the character of the calamity. The national\nexpectation was necessarily vague at first. It rested originally on the\ntradition of a general promise given to Abraham that his descendants\nshould be a great and happy nation, blessing and redeeming the nations\nof the earth; that their power should be world-wide, their wealth\ninexhaustible, their peace undisturbed, their moral supremacy gladly\nacknowledged. \"The Lord shall cause thine enemies that rise up against\nthee to be smitten before thy face; they shall come out against thee one\nway, and flee before thee seven ways. The Lord shall command the\nblessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thy\nhand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God\ngiveth thee. The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself,\nas he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the\nLord, and walk in his ways; and all people of the earth shall see that\nthou art called by the name of the Lord.\"\n\nAs a promise made by Jehovah must be kept, the anticipation of its\nfulfilment became strong as the prospect of it grew dim. The days of\ndisaster were the days of expectation. The prophets laid stress on the\ncondition, charged the delay upon lukewarmness, and urged the necessity\nof stricter conformity with the divine will; but the people, oblivious\nof duty, held to the pledge and cherished the anticipation. When the\nnational hope assumed the concrete form of faith in the advent of an\nindividual, when the conception of the individual became clothed in\nsupernatural attributes, is uncertain. Probably the looked-for deliverer\nwas from the first regarded as more than human. It could hardly be\notherwise, as he was to be the representative and agent of Jehovah, an\nincarnation of his truth and righteousness. The Hebrews easily\nconfounding the human with the super-human, were always tempted to\nascribe supernatural qualities to their political and spiritual leaders,\nbelieving that they were divinely commissioned, attested and furthered;\nand the person who was to accomplish what none of them had so much as\nhopefully undertaken, would naturally be clothed by an enthusiastic\nimagination, with attributes more than mortal. The poets depicted the\nstories of the future restoration in language of extraordinary splendor.\nJoel, some say eight hundred years before Jesus, two hundred years\nbefore the first captivity, foreshadows the restoration, but without any\nportraiture of the victorious Prince. A century and a half later we will\nsuppose, the first Isaiah speaks of the providential child of the\nnation, on whose shoulder the government shall rest, whose name shall be\ncalled Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Potentate, Everlasting Father,\nPrince of Peace; whose dominion shall be great, who shall fix and\nestablish the throne and kingdom of David, through justice and equity\nfor ever, and in peace without end; a lineal descendant from David, a\nsprout from his root.\n\n    \"The spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him,\n    \"The spirit of wisdom and understanding,\n    \"The spirit of counsel and might,\n    \"The spirit of knowledge and fear of Jehovah.\n    \"Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins,\n    \"And faithfulness the girdle of his reins;\n    \"To him shall the nation repair,\n    \"And his dwelling place shall be glorious.\"\n\nThe second Isaiah, supposed to have written during the exile and not\nlong before its termination, associates the hope of restoration and\nreturn with king Cyrus, on whose clemency the Jews built great\nexpectations, intimating even that he might be the promised deliverer.\n\"He saith of Cyrus: 'He is my shepherd; he shall perform all my\npleasure.' He saith of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built;' and of the\ntemple: 'Her foundation shall be laid.'\"\n\nIn the book of Daniel, by some supposed to have been written during the\ncaptivity, by others as late as Antiochus Epiphanes (B. C., 175), the\nrestoration is described in tremendous language, and the Messiah is\nportrayed as a supernatural personage, in close relation with Jehovah\nhimself. He is spoken of as a man, yet with such epithets as only a\nJewish imagination could use in describing a human being. Heinrich\nEwald, in the fifth volume of his history of the people of Israel,\ndevotes twenty-three pages to an account of the development of the\nnational expectation of a Messiah, which he calls \"the second\npreparatory condition of the consummation in Jesus.\" After alluding to\nJoel's fervent anticipation, and Isaiah's description of the glory that\nwas to come through the King, in whom the spirit of pure divinity\npenetrated, animated and glorified everything, so that his human nature\nwas exalted to the God-like power, whose actions, speech, breath even\nattested deity, he says: \"It is not to be questioned that this most\nexalted form of the conception of the anticipated Messiah appeared in\nthe midst of the latter period of this history, when before the great\nvictory of the Maccabees, the eternal hopes of Israel were disturbed in\ntheir foundations along with its political prospects, and the advent of\na King of David's line seemed wholly impossible. At this time the\ndeathless hope became more interior and imperishable in this new,\nglorious, celestial idea, and the Messiah presented himself before\nprophetic vision as existing from all eternity, along with the\nindestructible prerogatives of Israel, which were thought of as existing\nin an ideal realm, ready to manifest themselves visibly when the hour of\ndestiny should come. And we are able, on historical grounds, to assume\nthat the deep-souled author of the book of Daniel, was the man who first\nsketched the splendid shape of the Messiah, and the superb outline of\nhis kingdom, in his far-reaching, keen, suggestive, luminous phrases;\nwhile immediately after him the first composer of our book of Enoch\ndeveloped the traits furnished him, with an equal warmth of language and\na spiritual insight, not deeper perhaps, but quieter and more\ncomprehensive.\" Ewald supposes the book of Enoch to have been written at\nvarious intervals between 144 and 120 (B. C.) and to have been\ncompleted in its present form in the first half of the century that\npreceeded the coming of Christ. The book was regarded as of authority by\nTertullian, though Origen and Augustine classed it with apocryphal\nwritings. In it the figure of the Messiah is invested with super-human\nattributes. He is called \"The Son of God,\" \"whose name was spoken before\nthe sun was made;\" \"who existed from the beginning in the presence of\nGod,\" that is, was pre-existent. At the same time his human\ncharacteristics are insisted on. He is called \"Son of Man,\" even \"Son of\nWoman,\" \"The Anointed,\" \"The Elect,\" \"The Righteous One,\" after the\nstyle of earlier Hebrew anticipation. The doctrines of angelic orders\nand administrations, of Satan and his legions, of resurrection and the\nfinal judgment, though definitely shaped, perhaps by association with\nPersian mythologies, lay concealed in possibility within the original\nthought of ultimate supremacy which worked so long and so actively,\nthough so obscurely, in the mind of the Jewish race.\n\nThe books of Maccabees, belonging, according to Ewald, to the last half\ncentury before Christ, contain significant hints of the future beliefs\nof Israel. In the second chapter of II. Maccabees, verses 4-9, we read:\n\"It is also found in the records that Jeremy the prophet, being warned\nof God, commanded the tabernacle and the ark to go with him, as he went\nforth into the mountain where Moses climbed up and saw the heritage of\nGod. And when Jeremy came thither he found a hollow cave wherein he laid\nthe tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense, and then stopped\nthe door. And some of those that followed him came to mark the way, but\nthey could not find it; which, when Jeremy perceived, he blamed them,\nsaying: As for that place it shall be unknown until the time that God\ngather his people again together, and receive them unto mercy. Then\nshall the Lord show them these things, and the glory of the Lord shall\nappear, and the cloud also, as it was showed unto Moses.\" Is it a\nstretch of conjecture on the tenuous thread of fancy to find this\nreappearance described in Revelations XI., 19, in these words: \"And the\ntemple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in the temple the\nark of his covenant; and there were lightnings, and voices, and\nthunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail?\" In the twenty-first\nchapter the seer describes himself as \"carried away in the spirit to a\ngreat and high mountain\" and shown \"that great city the Holy Jerusalem,\ndescending out of heaven, from God.\" And he heard a great voice out of\nheaven, saying: \"Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men; He will\ndwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God himself shall be\nwith them, their God.\" The heavenly Jerusalem that came from the clouds\nis the heavenly city, the germ whereof was carried up and hidden in the\ncloud by Jeremy, the prophet. The apocryphal books of the Old Testament\nlodge the ancient Hebraic idea in the very heart of the New.\n\nThe earliest phases of the Messianic hope were the most exalted in\nspirituality. As the fortunes of the people became entangled with those\nof other states, and the heavy hand of foreign oppression was laid upon\nthem, the anticipation lost its religious and assumed a political\ncharacter. The Messiah assumed the aspect of a temporal prince, no other\nconception of him meeting the requirements of the time. The dark days\nhad come again, and were more threatening than ever. Sixty-three years\nbefore the birth of Jesus, Pompey the Great, returning from the East,\nflushed with victory, approached Jerusalem. The city shut its gates\nagainst him, but the resistance, though stubborn, was overcome at last,\nand Judaea was, with the rest of the world, swept into the mass of the\nRoman empire. The conqueror, proud but magnanimous, spared the people\nthe last humiliation. He respected no national scruples, perhaps made a\npoint of disregarding them; he even penetrated into the Holy of Holies,\na piece of sacrilegious audacity that no Gentile had ventured on before\nhim; but he was considerate of the national spirit in other respects,\nand left the State, in semblance at least, existing. He quelled the\nfactions that distracted the country, repaired the ruin caused in the\ncity by the siege, restored the injured temple, and departed leaving the\ncountry in the hands of native rulers, the Empire being thrown into the\nbackground. In the background, however, it lurked, a vast power, holding\nJudaea dependent and tributary. The Jewish state was closely bounded and\nsharply defined; a portion of its wealth was absorbed in taxes. An iron\narm repressed the insurgent fanaticism that ever and anon broke out in\nzeal for Jehovah. The loyalty that was kept alive by religious\ntraditions and was only another name for religious enthusiasm, was not\nallowed expression. Still the even pressure of imperial power was not\ncruelly felt, and by the better portion of the people was preferred to\nceaseless discord and anarchy. The lower orders, easily roused to\nfanaticism, provoked the Roman rule to more evident and stringent\ndominion. Julius Caesar, passing by on his way to Egypt, paused, saw the\nsituation, and increased the authority of Antipater, his representative,\nwhom he raised to the dignity of Procurator of Judaea. The rule of\nAntipater was, in the main, just, and commended itself to the rational\nfriends of the Jewish State. He rebuilt the wall which the assaults of\nwar had thrown down, pacified the country, and earned by his general\nmoderation the praise of the patriotic. But Antipater, besides being the\nrepresentative of a Gentile despotism, was of foreign race, an Idumaean,\nof the abhorred stock of Edom. Spiritual acquiescence in the rule of\nsuch a prince was not to be expected.\n\nAntipater was the founder of the Herodian dynasty. Whatever may have\nbeen the ulterior designs which the princes of this dynasty had at\nheart, whether they meditated an Eastern Empire centering in Palestine,\nJerusalem being the great metropolis, a purpose kept secret in their\nbreasts till such time as events might justify them in throwing off the\ndominion of Rome which they had used as an assistance in their period of\nweakness; or whether they hoped to combine Church and State in Judaea in\nsuch a way that each might support the other; or whether, in their\npassion for splendor, they plotted the subversion of religion by the\npomp of pagan civilization; the practical result of their dominion was\nthe exasperation of the Hebrew spirit.\n\nHerod, the son of Antipater, deserved, on several accounts, the title of\nGreat that history has bestowed on him. He was great as a soldier, great\nas a diplomatist, great as an administrator. Made king in his youth;\nestablished in his power by the Roman senate; confirmed in his state by\nAugustus; entrusted with all but unlimited powers; absolved from the\nduty to pay tribute to the empire; his long reign of more than forty\nyears was of great moment to the Jewish state. Internally he corrupted\nit, but externally he beautified it. The superb temple, one of the\nwonders and ornaments of the Eastern world, was of his building, and so\ndelicately as well as munificently was it done, that the shock of\nremoving the old edifice to make room for the new was quite avoided. He\nadorned the city besides, with sumptuous monuments and structures. His\npalaces, theatres, tombs were of unexampled magnificence. Nor was his\nattention confined to the city of Jerusalem; Caesarea was enriched with\nmarble docks and palaces; Joppa was made handsome; Antonia was\nfortified. Games and feasts relieved the monotony of Eastern life, and\ngratified the Greek taste for splendid gaiety. But this was all in the\ninterest of paganism. If he rebuilt the temple at Jerusalem, he rebuilt\nalso the temple at Samaria. If he made superb the worship of Jehovah in\nthe holy city, he encouraged heathen worship in the new city of Caesarea.\nThis introduction of Roman customs deeply offended the religious sense\nof the nation. Outside the city walls he had an amphitheatre for\nbarbarous games. Inside, he had a theatre for Greek plays and dances.\nThe castle, Antonia, well garrisoned, a castle and a palace combined,\ncommanded the temple square. The Roman eagle, fixed upon the front of\nthe temple, was an affront that no magnificence or munificence could\natone for. His private life was not calculated to win the favor of a\nseverely puritanical people, or persuade them of the advantage of being\nunder imperial dominion. The Greek legends on his coins, his\nostentatious encouragement of foreign usages and people, his rude\ntreatment of Hebrew prejudices, and his haughty bearing towards the\n\"first families\" added bitterness to the misery of foreign sway.\n\nYet the situation became worse at his death. For his successors had his\naudacity without his prudence, and were disposed, as he was, to be\noppressive, without being, as he was, magnificent. He did keep the\nnation at peace by his tyranny, if by his cruelty he undermined security\nand provoked the disaffection that made peace impossible after him. The\nlast acts ascribed to him, the order that the most eminent men of the\nnation should be put to death at his decease, and that the infants of\nBethlehem, the city of David, should be massacred, attest more than the\nvulgar belief in his cruelty; they bear witness to a conviction that the\nspirit of the people was not dead, that the despotism of Rome had failed\nto crush the hope of Israel. The death of Herod, which occurred when\nJesus was a little child, was followed by frightful social and political\nconvulsions. For two or three years all the elements of disorder were\nafoot. Between pretenders to the vacant throne of Herod, and aspirants\nto the Messianic throne of David, Judaea was torn and devastated. Revolt\nassumed the wildest form, the higher enthusiasm of faith yielded to the\nlower fury of fanaticism; the celestial visions of a kingdom of heaven\nwere completely banished by the smoke and flame of political hate.\nClaimant after claimant of the dangerous supremacy of the Messiah\nappeared, pitched a camp in the wilderness, raised the banner, gathered\na force, was attacked, defeated, banished or crucified; but the frenzy\ndid not abate. Conservative Jews, in their despair, sent an embassy to\nRome, praying for tranquility under the equitable reign of law. They\nwanted no king like Herod, or of Herod's line; they prayed to be\ndelivered from all kings who were not themselves subject to imperial\nresponsibility. The governor of Syria they would acknowledge. The\npetition was not granted. Herod's three sons, Archelaus, Antipas and\nPhilip divided their father's dominion between them; Judaea was made a\nRoman province, subject to taxation like any other.\n\nThe best of the three kings was Philip, who received as his portion the\nNorth Eastern division, the most remote from the centre of disturbance.\nHe was a quiet, well-disposed man, who staid at home, attended to his\nown business, developed the resources of his dominion, and showed\nhimself a father to his people. Caesarea Philippi was built by him;\nBethsaida was rebuilt. Antipas, called also Herod, was appointed ruler\nover Galilee and Peraea; a cunning, unprincipled man, nicknamed \"the\nfox;\" despotic and wilful, like his father, and like his father, fond of\ndisplay. He built Dio Caesarea, as it was afterwards called, and\nTiberias, on the sea of Galilee. He too was a good deal of a pagan, and\ndeeply outraged the Hebrew conscience by repudiating his wife, the\ndaughter of Aretas, an Arabian king, and marrying the wife of his\nhalf-brother, Philip. He was an oriental despot, superstitious,\nluxurious, sensual, wilful and weak; quite destitute of the\nstatesmanship required in the ruler of a turbulent province, where\nspecial care and skill were necessary to reconcile the order of civil\ngovernment with the aspiration after theocratic supremacy. The spiritual\nfear, which compelled him to stand in awe of religious enthusiasm, put\nhim on more than half earnest quest of prophetic messengers, made him\ncurious about miracles and signs, and anxious not to offend needlessly\nthe higher powers, was incessantly at war with the self-regarding policy\nwhich resented the smallest encroachment on his own authority. To\nmaintain his ducal state, and meet the cost of his public and private\nextravagance, he imposed heavy taxes, and collected them in an\nunscrupulous fashion, which made him and the empire he represented\nextremely unpopular. Jealous of his prerogative, and ambitious of regal\nrank, he brought himself into disagreeable collision with the\naspirations of the people he governed. His immediate neighborhood to the\ncentres of Jewish enthusiasm,--he lived in the very heart of it, for\nGalilee was the seat and head-quarters of Hebrew radicalism--made his\nevery movement felt. In him the spirit of the Roman empire was, in the\nbelief of the people, incarnate.\n\nThe oldest brother, Archelaus, held the chief position, bore the highest\ntitle, received the largest tribute, more than a million of dollars, and\nresided in Judaea, nearer the political centre of the country. His reign\nwas short. His cruelty and lawlessness, his disregard of private and\npublic decencies raised his subjects against him. Augustus, on an appeal\nto Rome for redress, summoned him to his presence, listened to the\ncharges and the defence, and banished him to Gaul. This was in the year\n6 of our era, only three years after the death of Herod. The reign of\nhis brothers, Philip and Antipas, covered the period of the life of\nJesus.\n\nThe \"taxing\" which excited the wildest uproar against the Roman power,\ntook place at this period,--A. D. 7,--under Cyrenius or Quirinus,\ngovernor of Syria; it was the first general tax laid directly by the\nimperial government, and it raised a furious storm of opposition. The\nHebrew spirit was stung into exasperation; the puritans of the nation,\nthe enthusiasts, fanatics, the zealots of the law, the literal\nconstructionists of prophecy, appealed to the national temper, revived\nthe national faith, and fanned into flame the combustible elements that\nsmouldered in the bosom of the race. A native Hebrew party was formed,\non the idea that Judaea was for the Jews; that the rule of the Gentile\nwas ungodly; that all support given to it was disloyalty to Jehovah. The\npopular feeling broke out in open rebellion; the fanaticism of the\n\"zealots\" affected the whole nation. Whoever had the courage to draw the\nsword in the name of the Messiah was sure of a following, though there\nwas no chance that the uprising would end in anything but blood and\nworse oppression. The most extravagant expectations were cherished of\nmiraculous furtherance and super-human aid. The popular imagination,\ninflamed by rhetoric taken from Daniel, Enoch, and other apocryphal\nbooks, went beyond all sober limits. The primary conditions of divine\nassistance, sanctity, fidelity, patience, meekness of trust, reverence\nfor the Lord's will, were neglected and forgotten; the promise alone was\nkept in view; the word of Jehovah was alone remembered; his command was\ndisregarded. But the Lord's promise was not kept. Every new uprising was\nfollowed by fresh impositions; the detestable dominion was fastened upon\nthe people more hopelessly than ever. The temper of the domination\nbecame bitter and contemptuous, as it had not been before. The name of\nJew was synonymous to Roman ears with vulgar fanaticism.\n\nIn place of Archelaus, Augustus sent procurators, as they were called,\nCoponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus. The country was generally\ntranquil under their short administrations; but the internal feuds were\nnot pacified. The enthusiasm of the Jews provoked the malignity of the\nSamaritans, who, having been longer wonted to foreign rule, less\nresented it, and were not unwilling to put themselves in league with the\ndespot to crush an ancient foe. It is related that during the\nadministration of Coponius, some evil-minded Samaritans, stole into the\nopen temple of Jerusalem, on the passover night, and threw human bones\ninto the holy place. The building was desecrated for the season and must\nbe purified by special sacrifices before it could be used again. The\ndastardly act was associated, in the minds of the people, with the\ninsulting degradations of the Gentile power, and the spirit of rebellion\nwas exasperated.\n\nAugustus died A. D. 14, and was succeeded by Tiberius, whose policy\ntowards Judaea, was not oppressive so much as contemptuous. He was too\nmerciful to the \"sick man\" to drive away the carrion flies that were\nalready surfeited, and let in a fresh swarm of blood-suckers. His\nviceroys enjoyed a long term of office and plundered at leisure. Pontius\nPilate was appointed to this position in the year 26, about four years\nbefore the public appearance of Jesus, and was kept there till the year\n37. He was, in many respects, a good administrator: overbearing, of\ncourse, for he was a Roman; his subjects were by nature, irritating,\nand by reputation, factious. He was greedy of gain, though not rapacious\nor extortionate; not a man of high principle; not a sympathetic or\nsentimental man, cold, indifferent, apathetic rather; still, moderate,\nand, on the whole, just; liable to mistakes through stubbornness and\nimprudence, but neither cruel, jealous, nor vindictive. The reputation\nof being all these was easily earned by a man in his position; for the\nJews were sensitive, not easily satisfied, and disposed to construe\nunfavorably any acts of a foreign ruler. As viceroys went, Pilate was\nnot a bad man, nor was he a bad specimen of his class. The smallest\nimprudence might precipitate riot in Jerusalem. On one occasion, the\ntroops from Samaria, coming to winter at Jerusalem, were allowed to\ncarry, emblazoned on their banner, the image of the emperor, to which\nthe Roman soldiers attached a sacred character. The sight of the\nidolatrous standard on the morning of its first exhibition created great\nexcitement. A riot broke forth at once; a deputation waited on the\ngovernor at Caesarea, to protest against the outrage and demand the\nremoval of the sacrilege. Pilate firmly withstood the supplicants,\nthinking the honor of the emperor at stake. Five days and five nights\nthe petitioners stayed, pressing their demand. On the sixth day, the\ngovernor, wearied by their importunity and resolved to put an end to the\nannoyance, had his judgment-seat placed on the race-course, ordered\ntroops to lie concealed in the near neighborhood, and awaited the visit\nof the Jews. The deputation came as usual with their complaint; at a\nsignal, the soldiers appeared and surrounded the suppliants, while the\nprocurator threatened them with instant death, if they did not at once\nretire to their homes. The stern puritans, nothing daunted, threw\nthemselves at his feet, stretched out their necks, and cried: 'It were\nbetter to die than to submit to insult to our holy laws.' The astonished\ngovernor yielded, and the insignia were removed.\n\nOn another occasion Pilate was made sensible of the inflammable\ncharacter of the people with whom he had to deal. He had allowed the\nconstruction, perhaps only the restoration, of a costly aqueduct to\nsupply the city, but more especially the temple buildings, with pure\nwater. It was built at the instance of the Sanhedrim and the priests, to\nwhom an abundance of water was a prime necessity. In consideration of\nthis fact, as well as of the circumstance that the benefit of the\nimprovement accrued wholly to the Jewish people, it seemed to Pilate no\nmore than just that the expense should be defrayed from moneys in the\ntemple treasury that were set apart for such purposes. There is no\nevidence that his action was unreasonable or his method of pursuing it\noffensive; but clamors at once arose against his project, and on\noccasion of his coming to Jerusalem a tumultuous crowd pressed on him,\nand insulting epithets were flung at him from the rabble. To still and\nscatter them soldiers were sent, in ordinary dress, with clubs in their\nhands, their weapons being concealed, to overawe the malcontents. This\nfailing, and the tumult increasing, the signal of attack was given; the\nsoldiers fell to with a will; blood was shed; innocent and guilty\nsuffered alike. As this occurred on a feast day, near the Praetorium, and\nnot far from the temple itself, it is quite possible that the sacred\nprecincts were disturbed by the uproar, and that the stain of blood\ntouched consecrated pavement. The popular mind, excited and maddened,\nseized on the occurrence, represented it as a deliberate affront on the\npart of the governor, and charged him with mingling the blood of\ninnocent people with the sacrifices they were offering to Jehovah. It is\nnot unlikely that the \"tower of Siloam\" which fell, crushing eighteen\ncitizens, was a part of this very aqueduct wall, and its fall may have\nbeen and probably was, regarded as a judgment on the work and on all who\ncountenanced it. That it made a profound impression on the popular\nimagination appears in the gospel narratives written many years\nafterwards. Ewald supposes that this accident happened at an early stage\nof the work, and was a leading cause of the fanatical outbreak that\nexpressed the popular discontent.\n\nPhilo tells a story of Pilate's administration, so characteristic that\nit deserves repeating, although, as Ewald remarks, it may be another\nversion of the incident of the standards. Ewald, however, is inclined to\nthink it a distinct occurrence. According to this narrative, Pilate, in\nhonor of the emperor, and in accordance with a custom prevalent\nthroughout the empire, especially in the East, caused to be set up in a\nconspicuous place in Jerusalem, two votive shields of gold, one bearing\nthe name of Tiberius, the other his own. The shields had nothing on them\nbut the names; no image, no inscription, no idolatrous emblem, simply\nthe two names. But even this was resented by the fiery populace who\ncould not endure the lightest intimation of their subjection to a\nGentile power. The indignation reached the aristocracy; at least, the\nforce of the movement did; and the sons of Herod, all four of them,\naccompanied by members of the first families and city officials,\nformally waited on Pilate to demand the removal of the tablets, and on\nhis refusal went to Rome to lay the matter before Tiberius, who granted,\non his part, the request. Be the incident as recorded true or not, the\nrecord of it by so near a contemporary and so clear a judge as Philo,\nthrows a strong light on the situation, brings the two parties into bold\nrelief, as they confront one another, and affords a glimpse into the\nsecret workings of Hebrew political motives.\n\nThe pressure of the Roman authority was incessant and severe, though the\napparatus of it was kept in the background. The governor held his court\nand head-quarters at Caesarea, a seaport town on the Mediterranean, about\nmid-way between Joppa on the south, and the promontory of Carmel on the\nnorth, admirably situated with regard to Rome, on the one side, and\nPalestine on the other. For strategic purposes the place was well\nchosen. The military force in the country was not large--about a\nthousand men--but it was effectively disposed. The castle of Antonia, in\nthe city of Jerusalem, contained a garrison judiciously small, but\nsufficient for an exigency. The viceroy was present in the Holy City on\npublic days when great assemblages of people, gathered together under\ncircumstances provocative of insurrection, required closer watch than\nusual. He had a residence there, and a judgment-seat on a marble balcony\nin front of the palace; he exercised regal powers, held the issues of\nlife and death, could depose priests of any order; in short, ruled the\nsubject people with as much consideration as the peculiar circumstances\nof the case demanded, but no more. The people were never permitted to\nforget their subject condition. The hated tax-gatherer went his rounds,\nexacting tribute to the empire. The evolutions of soldiers gave an\naspect of omnipresence to the foreign dominion. The hope of deliverance\nlost its spiritual character, and took on decidedly a political shape.\nThe anticipation of the Messiah became less ideal, but more intense. The\narmed figure of king David haunted the dreams of fanatics; even the\nangels that hovered before the imagination of gentler enthusiasts wore\nbreast-plates and had swords in their hands. The kingdom looked for was\nno reign of truth, mercy, and kindness, but a reign of force, for force\nalone could meet force.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nTHE SECTS.\n\n\nThe popular aspect of the Messianic hope was political, not religious or\nmoral. The name \"Messiah,\" was synonymous with \"King of the Jews;\" it\nsuggested political designs and aspirations. The assumption of that\ncharacter by any individual drew on him the vigilance of the police. In\nthis condition of affairs the public sentiment was divided between the\nConservatives and the Radicals. The first party comprised the wealthy,\nsettled, permanent, cautious people whose patriotism was tinged with\nprudent reflection. They saw the hopelessness of revolt, its inevitable\nfailure, and the worse tyranny that would follow its bloody suppression;\nthey put generous interpretations on the acts and intentions of the\nimperial power, did justice and a little more than literal justice to\nacts of clemency or forbearance, appreciated the value of the Roman\nsupremacy in preserving internal quiet and keeping other plunderers at a\ndistance; and had confidence that patience and diplomacy would\naccomplish what force could not undertake. They were careful,\ntherefore, to maintain a good understanding with the powers that were,\nand frowned on all attempts to revive the national spirit.\n\nThe conservatives were of all shades of opinion, and of all parties; the\nradicals were, as is usually the case, confined mostly to those who had\nlittle to lose, either of wealth, reputation, or social position. The\nsupremacy of Israel, the restoration of the Jewish Commonwealth, the\noverthrow of the wealthy and powerful, the reinstatement of the poor,\nthe unlettered, the weak, the suffering, the downtrodden \"children of\nAbraham,\" composed the group of ideas which made up the sum of their\nintellectual life. The Roman dominion was abhorred not because it was\ncruel, but because it was sacrilegious. Diplomacy, with these, was\nanother word for time-serving; policy another phrase for cowardice; they\ndetested prudence as ignoble; they distrusted conciliation as apostacy;\nthey put the worst construction on the fairest seeming deeds, dreading\nnothing so much as agreement between the chief men of Israel and the\nminions of the empire.\n\nThe educated and responsible classes were chiefly conservative. No sect\nwas so entirely, for no sect comprised all of these classes; but some\nsects were naturally more conservative than others. The Sadducees were,\non the whole, the most so; not by reason of their creed particularly,\nbut through the influence of their historical antecedents. After the\ncapture of Jerusalem by Ptolemy, 320 B. C., some hundred thousand Jews\nwent to Egypt and attained consequence there; had their own religious\nrites and temple. Contact with Greek thought and life there enlarged\ntheir minds. Their old-fashioned Hebraism seemed strait and prim by the\nside of the splendid exuberance of Gentile life in Alexandria. Jerusalem\nlooked, in the distance, like a provincial town; the wealth of pagan\nliterature dwarfed their Scriptures to the dimensions of a single deep\nbut narrow tradition. They were Jews still, but bigoted Jews no longer.\nHow unreasonable seemed now the prejudices of exclusive race! how unwise\nthe attempts to maintain peculiarities of custom! how fanatical the\nefforts to impose them upon others! The world was large and various: the\norder of the world followed the track of no one law-giver, prophet or\nsaint.\n\nThe sect of Sadducees is supposed to have risen from this pagan soil. It\nwas a sect of rationalists, free-thinkers, skeptics, eclectics; Jews,\nbut not dogmatists of any school. They believed in culture and general\nprogress, and had the characteristic traits of men so believing. They\nwere cool, unimpassioned, scientific; sentimentalism they abjured;\nenthusiasm to them was folly. They were glad to graft Greek culture on\nHebrew thought, and would not have been sorry to see the small Hebrew\nstate absorbed by some world-wide civilization. Moses they revered, and\nhis law; but the aftergrowth, priestly and prophetic, they discarded. No\ndoubt they thought the priests superstitious, the prophets mad, the\nrestorationists a set of fools, the vision of Israel's future supremacy\nthe mischievous nightmare of distempered minds. As a literary class the\nSadducees were few and select; aristocratic in taste, supercilious in\nmanners. They were in favor with the governors placed over the people by\nRoman authority, on account of their cultured moderation; and in return\nfor social and political support, received offices in the State, and\neven in the Church. Caiaphas, the high priest in the time of Jesus, was\na Sadducee, and was raised to that dignity by Valerius Gratus, Pilate's\npredecessor in office.\n\nThe Sadducee was a man of the world; not in the bad sense, but in the\nstrict sense of the term. Disbelieving in immortality, he confined his\nview to the possibilities of the time; disbelieving in angels and\nspecial providences, he put confidence in temporal powers; disbelieving\nthe doctrine of divine decrees and manifest destiny, he pursued the\ncalculations of policy and held himself within the reasonable compass of\nhuman motives. Compromisers on principle, the Sadducees were unpopular\nin a community of earnest Jews. They bore bad names, were called\nepicureans, sensualists, materialists, cold-blooded aristocrats, allies\nof despotism; but they deserved these abusive appellations no more than\nmen of the same description in modern states deserve them. The abusive\nepithet was one of the penalties they had to pay for the intellectual\nand social consequence they enjoyed.\n\nThe Pharisees were more numerous, more commonplace and more popular.\nThey were, in fact, the great popular sect. They were of more recent\norigin than the Sadducees, their history going back only about a century\nand a half before the time of Jesus. Their name, which means \"exclusive\"\nor \"elect,\" \"set apart,\" sufficiently indicates their character. They\nwere the \"strait\" sect; Hebrews of the Hebrews; Puritans of the\nPuritans; the quintessence of theocratic fervor and patriotic faith; the\ntrue Israel. Strict constructionists they were; friends to the law and\nthe testimony; worshippers of the letter and the form; painstaking\npreservers of every iota of the written word; firm believers in the\ndestiny of Israel, in the special providence that could accomplish it,\nin the angelic powers whose agency might be needed to fulfil it, in the\nfuture life when it was to be fulfilled. They held to the law, and they\nheld to the prophets, major and minor; they could divide the word of the\nLord to a hair.\n\nThe Pharisees have usually been called a sect; they were not so much a\nsect as a party. Church and State being one in the conception of a\ntheocracy, or government of God, the devotee and the politician were the\nsame person; the dogmatist was the democrat; the man of narrowest creed\nwas the man of widest sympathies; the most exclusive theologian was the\nmost popular partisan. To keep Israel true to the faith, and, in\nconsequence of that to save it from political decline, was, from the\nfirst, the Pharisee's mission. He never lost it from his view. His eye\nwas steadily fixed on the issues of the day, as they involved the\ndestinies of the future. In order that he might be a patriot, he was\nanxious to preserve unimpaired his puritanism; and in order that he\nmight preserve his puritanism unimpaired, he attended diligently to the\nduties of patriotism.\n\nThe Pharisee cherished the Messianic hope. It was part of his faith in\nthe destiny of Israel, and the great practical justification of his\nbelief in the resurrection of the dead; he believed in personal\nimmortality, because he believed in the Christ who would come to bestow\nit. It was an article of the patriot's creed; the joy of the Messianic\nfelicity being the reward for fidelity to Israel. The hope presented to\nhim its political aspect, that being the aspect really fascinating to\npatriotic contemplation. The moral and spiritual aspects were incidental\nto this. In fact the moral and spiritual aspects were scarcely thought\nof. It was reserved for Christianity to develop these when the literal\ndoctrine had lost its interest, and the heavenly kingdom had been\ntransported from the earth to the skies. A thousand and a half of years\nhave not spiritualized the belief with the multitude. Still the\nPharisaic doctrine is the accepted faith; a purely rational human faith\nin immortality is entertained by the philosophical few. The Pharisees\nconstituted a sort of Young Men's Hebrew Association, loosely organized\nfor the maintenance of the faith and the fulfilment of the destiny of\nIsrael.\n\nBut while all Pharisees shared the same general beliefs, all were not of\nthe same mind on questions of immediate policy. They were divided into\nconservative and radical wings. The conservatives, whether from\ntemperament, position, conviction, or selfish interest, deprecated\nsudden or violent measures which would defeat their own ends and make a\nbad state of things worse. They counselled moderation, patience,\nacquiescence in the actual and inevitable. They discountenanced the open\nexpressions of discontent, advised submission to law, and preached the\nduty of strict religious observance as the proper preparation, on their\npart, for the providential advent of the Son of Man. No doubt this\npolicy was prompted in many cases by timidity, and in many cases by\ntime-serving craft; but no doubt it was in many cases suggested by sober\nstatesmanship. The conservative Pharisee was even less popular than the\nSadducee; for the Sadducee pretended to no belief in Israel's\nprovidential destiny, and to no sympathy with Israel's Messianic hope;\nwhile the Pharisee made conspicuous protestation of orthodox zeal.\nEvidence of the popular dislike of the conservative Pharisee abounds. He\nwas looked upon as a renegade. He was called pretender and hypocrite,\nwolf in sheep's clothing, a whited sepulchre. He was ridiculed and\nlampooned. All manner of heartlessness was charged against him, as being\na monster of inhumanity. \"The Talmud,\" says Deutsch, \"inveighs even more\nbitterly and caustically than the New Testament, against what it calls\n'the plague of Pharisaism;' 'the dyed ones,' 'who do evil deeds, like\nZimri, and require a goodly reward, like Phinehas;' 'who preach\nbeautifully, but behave unbeautifully.'\" Their artificial\ninterpretations, their divisions and sub-divisions, their attitudes and\nposturings were parodied and caricatured. The conventional Pharisee was\nclassed under one of six categories: he did the will of God, but from\ninterested motives; he was forever doing the will of God, but never\naccomplishing it; he performed absurd penances to avoid imaginary sins;\nhe accepted office in the character of saint; he sanctimoniously begged\nhis neighbor to mention some duty he had inadvertently omitted, his\ndesign being to seem faithful in all things when he was faithful in\nnothing; or, if sincerely devout, he was devout from fear. He had no\ncredit given him for his virtues, and more than due discredit for his\nvices. In time of peril the conservatives out-numbered the radicals, for\nradicalism was dangerous; and the feeling between the two classes was\nthe bitterer on this account; the conservatives hating the radicals whom\nthey could not disown, the radicals despising the conservatives who were\ntheir brothers in faith. Each party compromised the other precisely\nwhere misapprehension was most exasperating.\n\nFor the radicalism of the time was exclusively, we may say, pharisaic.\nThere was no other of any considerable account. None but believers in\nthe restoration of Israel, in the triumphant vindication of her faith in\na new and complete social order and in absolute political independence;\nnone but believers in divine interposition, and a personal resurrection\nof the faithful for the enjoyment of felicity in the Messianic kingdom;\nnone but devout students of the scripture, recipients of the whole\ntradition, visionaries of the literal or spiritual order, could\nentertain so audacious a hope; and all these were Pharisees.\n\nThe Essenes, a mystical and secluded sect, dwelt apart, took no interest\nin public affairs, and exerted no influence on public opinion. Peculiar\nin their usages, secret in their proceedings, contemplative in their\nhabits, quietists and dreamers, they so transfigured and sublimated the\nviews which they shared with their compatriots, that no point of\npractical contact was visible. From them no prophet or reformer came.\nThe soul of the Hebrew faith was all they recognized; the body of it\nthey were indifferent to. That in many respects their doctrines,\nprecepts, social usages and religious practices corresponded with those\nheld by conscientious Jews, need not be questioned. It does not follow\nthat they originated or communicated them. Such opinions were simply\nadopted as a common inheritance. The Essenes rather withdrew than\nimparted their belief. All the ingenuity of DeQuincey is unavailing to\nestablish a practical relation between the Essenes and any popular\nmovement in Judaea. These movements were led by the more enthusiastic of\nthe Pharisees, and followed by the multitude that shared their ideas.\n\nThe \"lawyers\" and \"scribes,\" Pharisees for the most part by profession,\nwere in consequence of their profession, conservative. Men of learning,\nwell balanced in mind, carefully educated, good linguists, masters often\nin theology, philosophy, moral science, familiar as any were with\nnatural history, the mathematics, botany, engaged in the study and\nexposition of the sacred books, they were from the scholastic nature of\ntheir pursuits, disinclined to take part in popular reforms. There were\nno zealots among them; they were men of moderate opinions and calm\ntempers, capable of stubborn resistance to the elements of agitation,\nbut incapable of vehement sympathies with enthusiasm.\n\nThe \"Herodians,\" were a limited and never a popular party, who hoped\nthat, in some way, the deliverance of Israel might come through the\nfamily of Herod, as being Jews but not bigots, of foreign extraction but\nof oriental genius, whose dynasty had been, and might again be,\nindependent of Rome. These men were interested in public affairs,\nwatched narrowly the signs of the times in politics, but were as jealous\non the one side, of popular outbreaks, as they were on the other, of\nimperial domination. Deliverance, in their judgment, was to come by\ndiplomacy, not by enthusiasm. They had no religious creed that\ndistinguished them as a party. Some may have been Sadducees; more,\nprobably were Pharisees; but whether Pharisees or Sadducees, they were\nin no danger of being demagogues or the dupes of demagogues. The party\nwas in existence at the period of Jesus; but it could not have been\nstrong. Its influence, if it ever had any, was declining with the\ndecreasing significance of the Herodian line. We hear little of them in\nthe literature of the time; with the final and absolute supremacy of\nRome, they disappeared. The casual mention of them, once in Matthew and\nonce in Mark, on the same occasion, and in connection with the\nPharisees, is evidence that they were still in existence late in the\nfirst century. That is their last appearance.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nTHE MESSIAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nThe earliest writings of the New Testament, the genuine letters of Paul,\nwritten not far from the year 60, thirty years more or less after the\nreceived date of the crucifixion of Jesus, take up and continue the line\nof Jewish tradition. No traces exist of literature produced between the\nopening of the century and the epistolary activity of the apostle of the\nGentiles. The times were unfavorable to the production and the\npreservation of literary work. The earliest gospels, even granting their\ngenuineness and authenticity, cannot be assigned to so early a period,\ncannot be crowded back beyond the year 70, and must probably be placed\nlater by ten, fifteen, twenty years. They bear evidently on their pages\nthe impress of ideas which Paul made current. Their authors, when not\ndisciples of his school, respected it and had regard to its claim. The\ngospel of Luke betrays, in its whole structure the shaping hand of a\nPauline adherent. Its catholicity, its anti-Judaic spirit, its frequent\nand approving mention of Samaritans, its doctrine of demons and powers\nof the infernal world, its constant recognition in precept and parable\nof the claims of the heathen on the salvation of the Christ, are a few\nof the plain marks of a genius foreign to that of Palestine. The gospel\nof Mark is similarly though not so eminently or so minutely\ncharacterized. Even the gospel of Matthew contains deposits from this\nformation. The language of one verse in the eleventh chapter,--\"All\nthings are delivered unto me of My Father; and no man knoweth the Son,\nbut the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he\nto whom the Son will reveal him,\" confesses in every word, its Pauline\norigin. The passage lies like a boulder on a common.\n\nThough concerned with a period anterior to the apostle's conversion,\nwith events whereof he had no knowledge, and with a life from which he\nprofessed to derive only his impulse, the gospels are written, not in\nthe style of chronicles or memoirs, but in the style of disquisitions\nrather. Far from being the artless, guileless, unstudied compositions\nthey have passed for, they are imbued with an atmosphere of reflection,\nare ingeniously elaborate and, in parts painfully studied. They are\nmeditated biographies, in which the biographical material is selected\nand qualified by speculative motives. Nevertheless, these are the only\nfragments presumably of historical character that we possess. The\nperiod that Paul's ministry supposes must be searched for in these\nafter-minded books. Hence arise grave literary difficulties. Several\npoints must be borne in mind; the absence of any contemporaneous account\nof the ministry of Jesus; the utter dearth of early memoranda; the\nadvanced age of the evangelists at the time they wrote, even on the\ncommon reckoning, and the effect of age in weakening recollection,\nsuggesting fancies, raising queries, inflaming imaginations, making the\nmind receptive of theories and marvels; the influence on the disciples\nand on the intellectual world of a man so powerful as Paul, and the\naltered speculative climate of the later apostolic age. The literary\nlaws forbid under these circumstances our reading the gospel narratives\nas authentic histories--constrain us in fact to read them, in some sort,\nas disquisitions, making allowance as we go along, for the infusion of\ndoctrinal elements.\n\nThe actual Jesus is, thus understood, inaccessible to scientific\nresearch. His image cannot be recovered. He left no memorial in writing\nof himself; his followers were illiterate; the mind of his age was\nconfused. Paul received only traditions of him, how definite we have no\nmeans of knowing, apparently not significant enough to be treasured, nor\nconsistent enough to oppose a barrier to his own speculations. The\ncharacter of Jesus is a fair subject for discussion and conjecture; but\nat this stage in a literary study such discussion and conjecture would\nbe out of place. We have at present simply to inquire into the character\nof the Messianic hope as it was illustrated in the ante-Pauline period.\nThis task is less difficult, and may be accomplished without detriment\nto moral or spiritual qualities which Jesus may have possessed.\n\nThe earliest phase of the Messianic hope in the New Testament must have\ncorresponded with prevalent expectations of Israel in the early period\nof our first century. What that was has been described. The \"Son of Man\"\nof Matthew, Mark and Luke, their Pauline elements being eliminated,\nmeets the requirements in every respect, and in no particular transcends\nthem. He is a radical Pharisee who has at heart the enfranchisement of\nhis people. He is represented as being a native of Galilee, the\ninsurgent district of the country; nurtured, if not born in Nazareth,\none of its chief cities; reared as a youth amid traditions of patriotic\ndevotion, and amid scenes associated with heroic dreams and endeavors.\nThe Galileans were restless, excitable people, beyond the reach of\nconventionalities, remote from the centre of power ecclesiastical and\nsecular, simple in their lives, bold of speech, independent in thought,\nthorough-going in the sort of radicalism that is common among people who\nlive \"out of the world,\" who have leisure to discuss the exciting topics\nof the day, but too little knowledge, culture, or sense of social\nresponsibility to discuss them soundly. Their mental discontent and\nmoral intractability were proverbial. They were belligerents. The Romans\nhad more trouble with them than with the natives of any other province.\nThe Messiahs all started out from Galilee, and never failed to collect\nfollowers round their standard. The Galileans more than others, lived in\nthe anticipation of the Deliverer. The reference of the Messiah to\nGalilee is therefore already an indication of the character he is to\nassume.\n\nAnother indication, equally pointed, is the brief association with\nBethlehem, the city of David, and the pains taken to connect the Messiah\nwith the royal line. The early traditions go out of their way to prove\nthis. A labored genealogy is invented to show the path of his descent.\nProphecy and song are called in to ratify his lineage. Inspired lips\nrepeat ancient psalms announcing the glory that is to come to the House\nof David. An angel promises Mary that her son shall have given unto him\n\"the throne of his father, David, and shall reign over the house of\nJacob for ever.\" The Messiah is called the \"Son of David;\" an\nappellation that carried the idea of temporal dominion and no other. The\nlegends respecting the massacre of the children in Bethlehem and the\nflight into Egypt, belong to the same circle of prediction.\n\nAnother indication to the same purpose is the patient effort to\nrepresent the Messiah as fulfilling Old Testament anticipations. \"That\nthe scripture might be fulfilled\" is the reiterated explanation of his\nordinary actions. The earliest records miss no occasion for declaring\nthe Messiah's fidelity to the law of Moses. Among the first words put\ninto his mouth is the earnest protestation: \"Think not that I am come to\ndestroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to\nestablish;\" and this statement is followed by a detailed contrast\nbetween the literal and the spiritual interpretation of the law,\nprecisely in the vein of the prophets who held themselves to be the true\nfriends of the code which the priests and formalists perverted. There is\nnothing in this criticism disrespectful to the commandments, or beyond\nthe mark of orthodox scripture.\n\nThe visit to the Baptist, who, entertaining the popular notion of the\nMessiah, and believing in his speedy advent, welcomed Jesus to the\nvacant position; Jesus' response to the call, and acceptance of the\n_role_, are in the same vein. Let it not be forgotten that the later\nmisgivings of the Baptist were raised by the apparent failure of the\nMessiah to justify expectation; that John, from his prison, sends a\nsharp message, and that the Messiah, instead of correcting the\nprecursor's crude idea, simply bids him be patient and construe the\nsigns in faith.\n\nThe story of the Temptation in the Wilderness, closely patterned after\nincidents in the career of Moses, is calculated to join the two closely\nby similarity of experience. That the Messiah should be tempted is quite\nwithin the circle of later Jewish conceptions, as the literature of the\nTalmud proves.\n\nThe story of the Transfiguration derives its point from the circumstance\nthat the spirits with whom the chosen one held communion were Moses and\nElias, the law-giver and the prophet of the old dispensation.\n\nThe phrase \"Kingdom of Heaven,\" so frequent on the Messiah's lips, had\nbut one meaning, which was universally understood. It described a\ntemporal rule, the reign of a prince of David's line. No class of people\naccepted the phrase in any different sense. The Christ nowhere corrects\nthe vulgar opinion, or places his own in opposition to it. The\nevangelist intends to convey the idea that he is in full accord with the\ngeneral feeling.\n\nThe questions put to the Messiah and the answers given to them are\nadditional evidence of this assent; the question, for example,\nconcerning the obligation to pay tribute to the Roman government, a test\nquestion touching the very heart of Jewish patriotism, and the cautious\nreply, calculated to evade the peril of a categorical declaration which\nwas felt to be called for, and to be due. The rejoinder of the Christ is\ndesigned to satisfy the popular expectation without raising popular\nuproar. It is the answer of a patriot, but not of a zealot. Had the\nMessiah not corresponded to the image in the Jewish imagination, the\ninquiry might have been summarily dismissed. Its evasion proves not that\nthe Christ transcended the average expectation, but that he shared it.\nThe version of the incident given in Matthew XVII, confirms this\njudgment; for according to that account the Messiah privately admits the\nexemption from tribute, and then provides miraculously for its payment,\n\"lest we should give offence.\"\n\nThe nature of the excitement caused by the Messiah is another evidence\nof the spirit in which he wrought. Everywhere he is greeted as the\nMessiah, the son of David; everywhere the multitudes flock to him, as to\nthe expected king. His intimate friends are never disabused of the\nnotion that they, if they continue firm in their allegiance, will hold\nplaces of honor at his right hand. He reminds them of the stringency of\nthe conditions, but does not condemn the idea. An ambitious mother\npresents her two sons as candidates for preferment, asking for them\nseats at his right and left hand, on his coming to glory. He rebukes the\nselfishness of the ambition, says that seats of honor are for those that\nearn them, not for those that desire them, adding that he has no\nauthority to assign places even to the worthiest; but he does not\ndiscountenance the notion that he shall sit in glory, that there will\nbe places of honor on either side of him, or that the faithful servants\nwill occupy them. Indeed, his reply confirms that anticipation.\n\nThe multitude, impressed by his claim, desire to make him a king. He\nremoves himself; not because he repudiates all right to the office, he\nnowhere hints that, and in places he more than hints the contrary,--but\nbecause he is not prepared to avow his pretension. The time is not ripe\nfor a manifesto.\n\nThe writers about this period take especial pains to limit the\nconception of the Messiah within the boundaries of the average patriotic\nideal. They make him declare to the twelve disciples, as he sends them\nforth, that before they shall have carried their message to the cities\nof Israel the Son of Man would announce himself. On a later occasion he\nis made to say: \"There are some here who will not taste of death till\nthey see the Son of Man coming in his glory.\" Declarations like these\nare pointedly inconsistent with an intellectual or moral idea of the\nkingdom. The notion of progress, instruction, regenerating influence,\ngradual elevation through the power of character, is precluded. The\nkingdom is to come in time, suddenly, unexpectedly, by a shock of\nsupernatural agency, at the instant the Lord wills; the Son of Man\nhimself knows not when, for it is not dependent on his activity as a\nreformer, his success as a teacher, or his influence as a person, but on\nthe decree of Jehovah.\n\nThe attempt on the popular feeling in Jerusalem, strangely called the\ntriumphal entrance of the Messiah into the holy city, is unintelligible\nexcept as a political demonstration; whether projected by the Christ or\nby his followers, or by the Christ urged by the importunate expectations\nof his followers, whether undertaken hopefully or in desperation, it\nnowhere appears that it was made in any moral or spiritual interest. All\nthe incidents of the narrative point to a political end, the public\nassertion of the Christ's Messianic claim. The ass, used instead of the\nchariot or the horse by royalty on state occasions, and especially\nalluded to by the prophet Zechariah in connexion with the coming of\nZion's King; the palm branches and hosannahs, emblems of sacred majesty;\nthe cries of the attendant throng loudly proclaiming the Messiah; the\nGalileaan composition of the crowd, marking the revolutionary temper of\nit; the blank reception of the pageant by the citizens who were too wary\nto commit themselves to the chances of collision with the Roman\nauthorities; the complete failure of the demonstration in the heart of\nconservative Judaea; the bearing of the Christ himself as of one\nconscious of a sublime but perilous mission; all these things find ready\nexplanation by the popular conception of the Messiah, as a national\ndeliverer, but are unintelligible on any other theory.\n\nThe unspiritual character of the Messiah's attitude is made yet more\napparent as the history draws to a close. The violent purging of the\ntemple can only by great vigor of interpretation be made to bear any\nsave a national complexion. It was the assertion of Jehovah's right to\nhis own domain; an indignant, passionate assertion; the declaration of a\nzealot whose zeal overrode considerations of wisdom.\n\nThe Christ's bearing before his Roman judge is of the same strain; the\nproud silence of the arraigned prince; the bold assertion of kingliness,\nwhen challenged; the stately defiance of the pagan's wrath; the appeal\nto supernatural support; the prediction of angelic succor in the hour of\nneed, in strict accordance with the apocalyptic expressions thrown out\nat the last supper, and reverberated in tremendous rhetoric on the Mount\nof Olives and in the palace of the high priest, expressions in full and\nliteral harmony with the Jewish conceptions of the Christ's relations\nwith the angelic world, wholly in the spirit of Daniel, Enoch, and other\napocryphal writings, leave no doubt on the mind that this personage\nmoved within the limits of the common Messianic conception. Pilate\ncondemns him reluctantly, feeling that he is a harmless visionary, but\nis obliged to condemn him as one who persistently claimed to be the\n\"King of the Jews,\" an enemy of Caesar, an insurgent against the empire,\na pretender to the throne, a bold inciter to rebellion. The death he\nundergoes is the death of the traitor and mutineer, the death that\nwould have been decreed to Judas the Gaulonite, had he been captured\ninstead of slain in battle, and that was inflicted on thousands of his\ndeluded followers. The bitter cry of the crucified as he hung on the\ncross, \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" disclosed the hope\nof deliverance that till the last moment sustained his heart, and\nbetrayed the anguish felt when the hope was blighted; the sneers and\nhootings of the rabble expressed their conviction that he had pretended\nto be what he was not.\n\nThe miracles ascribed to the Christ, so far from being inconsistent with\nthe ordinary conception of the Messianic office, were necessary to\ncomplete that conception. It was expected that the Messiah would work\nmiracles. This was one of his prerogatives; a certificate of his\ncommission from Jehovah, and an instrument of great service in carrying\nout his designs. To the Jew of that, as of preceding periods, to the\ncrude theist of all periods, the belief in miracles was and is easy. In\nsuch judgment, the will of God is absolute, and when should that will be\nexerted if not at providential crises of need, or in furtherance of his\nservants' work? The special miracles attributed to the Christ of the\nearliest New Testament literature are, as Strauss conclusively shows,\npatterned after performances which met satisfactorily the demands of the\nJewish imagination; being either repetitions of ancient marvels, or\nconcrete expressions of ideal faith. The miracles of this Christ are\nprecisely adjusted to the exigencies of his calling, in no respect\ntranscending or falling short of that standard.\n\nThe moral precepts put into the Messiah's mouth are also what he might\nbe expected to utter. The teachings of the sermon on the Mount are\nechoes, and not altogether awakening or inspiring echoes, of ancient\nethical law. The beatitudes do not exceed in beauty of sentiment or\nfelicity of phrase, lovely passages that gem the pages of prophet,\npsalmist and sage. Portions of the morality are harsh, ungracious,\nintemperate, almost inhuman as compared with the mellow grandeur of the\nolder law. Several of the parables, if taken in an ethical sense,\ncontain moral injunctions or insinuations that are quite unjustifiable;\nthe parable, for example, of the laborers in the vineyard, the last of\nwhom, though they have worked but one hour, receive the same\ncompensation as the early comers, who had borne the burden and heat of\nthe day;--the parable of the steward, which, literally construed,\npalliates abuse of trusts;--the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which\nteaches the evil lesson that felicity or infelicity hereafter is\nconsequent on fortune or misfortune here. These and other parables are\ndeprived of their dangerous moral tendency by being removed from the\nethical category, and made to convey lessons of a different kind. Read\nthe story of the laborers in the vineyard as intended to justify\nJehovah in granting the same spiritual favors to the newly called\nGentiles as to the descendants of Abraham who, from the first, answered\nto the call addressed to them:--read the story of the steward as\nconveying an explanation of the Pauline policy in making capital with\nthe Gentiles by offering to them on easy terms the promises that the\nJews showed themselves unworthy of, and rejected:--read the story of\nDives and Lazarus as containing the idea that the \"poor in spirit,\" the\noutcast, to whom the mansions of the Lord's house, the patrimony of\nAbraham had never been opened, the people who had nothing but\nfaith,--whom even pagan dogs commiserated,--should enjoy the blessedness\nof the Messiah's kingdom rather than those who claimed a prescriptive\nright to it on the ground of descent or privilege,--and the difficulty\nof reconciling them with moral principle is avoided. These parables and\nothers of like tenor, do not belong to the first layer of Messianic\ntradition, but to the second deposit made by the Apostle Paul.\n\nTo the same period belong other parables that contain larger ideas than\nthe Jewish Messiah of the first generation could entertain. Such are the\nstory of the net cast into the sea and gathering in of every kind, that\nis, \"Greeks and Romans, barbarians, Scythians, bond and free,\" not\nHebrews only,--the miscellaneous haul being impartially\nexamined--sweetness of quality, not forms of scale being made the\ncondition of acceptance;--the story of the good Samaritan, designed to\nplace people reckoned idolators and miscreants on a higher spiritual\nlevel than anointed priests of whatever order, who postponed mercy to\nsacrifice. Could the Jewish Messiah attribute to Samaritans a grace that\nwas the highest adornment of faithful Jews? The story of the prodigal\nson belongs to the same category. The elder brother, who has always been\nat home, dutiful but ungracious niggardly and covetous, is the Jew who\nhas never left the homestead of faith, but has stayed there, confidently\nexpecting the Messianic inheritance as the reward of his conventional\northodoxy. The younger brother is the Gentile, the infidel, the pagan\napostate, who throws off the parental authority and reduces himself to\nspiritual beggary. He spends all; he contents himself with refuse; is\nmore heathenish than the heathen themselves; swinish in his habits. Yet\nthis spiritual reprobate, by his unseemly behavior, forfeits no\nprivilege. The \"mansion\" of the Father's house is still open to him when\nhe shall choose to return. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob waits and\nwatches for the penitent; sees him a great way off; runs to meet him;\nthrows his arms about his neck; reinstates him in his place; celebrates\nhis arrival by feasting, and puts him above the elder brother who had\nbeen working in the field while the prodigal had been rioting in the\ncity. Such a lesson from the lips of the Jewish Messiah would have been\nastonishing indeed. It would have gone far towards overturning his\nclaim. We know that some years later the lesson was inculcated as a\ncardinal doctrine by Paul and regarded as a heresy by the Christ's\npersonal disciples, and it is in accordance with literary laws to refer\nto this later period the ideas that were native to it.\n\nThe religious beliefs imputed to the Messiah we are sketching, are the\nordinary beliefs of his age and people. His faith is the faith of the\nPharisees. His idea of God is the national idea softened, as it always\nhad been, by a gentle mind. It thinks as his countrymen thought about\nProvidence, fate and freedom, good and evil, destiny, the past and the\nfuture of his race. He believes in the resurrection and the judgment,\nthe blessedness that is in store for the faithful Israelite, the misery\nthat awaits the unworthy children of Abraham. His moral classifications\nare the technical classifications of the enthusiastic patriot, who\nconfounded national with rational principles of judgment. He believes in\ngood and bad angels, in guardian spirits and demoniacal possession. A\nPharisee of the narrow literal school he is not. His allegiance to the\nMosaic law is spiritual, not slavish; his faith in the perpetuity of the\ntemple worship is unencumbered with formalism; he discriminates between\nthe priestly office and the priestly character, between the form and\nthe essence of sacrifice; yet is he capable of lurid feelings and bitter\nthoughts towards the Pharisees of another school; he cannot enter into\nthe mind of the Sadducee; and the scribe is a person he cannot respect.\nOn this side his intolerance occasionally breaks forth with\ninconsiderate heat. He calls his opponents \"blind guides,\" \"hypocrites,\"\n\"whited sepulchres,\" and threatens them with the wrath of the Eternal.\n\nThe Messiah's essential conception of his office does not differ\nmaterially from that of his countrymen. He is no military leader; he\nputs no confidence in the sword; he incites to no revolt. But he does\nnot trust to intellectual methods for his success; the success that he\nanticipates is not such as follows the promulgation of ideas, or the\nestablishment of moral convictions. He looks for demonstrations of\npower, not human but super-human. The hosts that surround him, and are\nreckoned on to sustain him, are the hosts of heaven, marshalled under\nthe Lord and prepared to sweep down upon the Lord's foes when the hour\nof conflict shall strike. He will not draw the sword himself, or allow\nhis followers to gird on weapons of war; but he is more than willing to\navail himself of legions irresistible in might. James Martineau has\ntouched this point with a master hand: \"The non-resistant principle\nmeant no more in the early church than that the disciples were not to\nanticipate the hour fast approaching of the Messiah's descent to claim\nhis throne. But when that hour struck there was to be no want of\n'physical force' no shrinking from retribution as either unjust or\nundivine. The 'flaming fire,' the 'sudden destruction,' the 'mighty\nangels,' the 'tribulation and anguish,' were to form the retinue of\nChrist, and the pioneers of the kingdom of God. The new reign was to\ncome _with force_, and on nothing else in the last resort was there any\nreliance; only the army was to arrive from heaven before the earthly\nrecruits were taken up. 'My kingdom,' said Jesus, 'is not of this world,\nelse would my servants fight;' an expression which implies that no\nkingdom of this world can dispense with arms, and that he himself, were\nhe the head of a human polity, would not forbid the sword: but while\n'legions of angels' stood ready for his word, and only waited till the\nScripture was fulfilled, and the hour of darkness was passed, to obey\nthe signal of heavenly invasion, the weapon of earthly temper might\nremain in its sheath.\"\n\nIt is not affirmed here that the actual Jesus corresponded to this\nMessianic representation; that he filled it and no more; that it\ncorrectly and adequately reported him. It may possibly present only so\nmuch of him as the average of his contemporaries could appreciate. They\nmay be right who are of opinion that the fourth evangelist comes nearer\nto the historical truth than the first. That the earliest New Testament\nconception of the Messiah has been correctly portrayed in the preceding\nsketch may be granted without prejudice to the historical Jesus. They\nonly who assume the identity of this Hebrew Messiah with the man of\nNazareth, need place him in the niche that is here made for the Messiah.\nThere are others more noble. Let each decide for himself, on the\nevidence, to which he belongs. Some will decide that the first account\nof a wonderful person must, from the nature of the case, be the falsest;\nothers will decide that in the nature of things it must be the truest.\nWhichever be the decision the literary image remains unimpaired. Whether\ntime should be judged requisite to emancipate the living character from\nthe associations of its environment, and bring it into full view; or\nwhether on the other hand time should be regarded as darkening and\nconfusing the image, for the reason that it allows the growth of legends\nand distorting theory, is a question that will be touched by-and-by. For\nthe present it suffices to show what the earliest representation was,\nand to trace its descent from the traditions of the race. The materials\nare adequate for this, whether for more or not. The form of Jesus may be\nlost, but the form of the Messiah is distinct.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nTHE FIRST CHRISTIANS.\n\n\nThe death of the Messiah did not discourage his followers, as it might\nhave done had he presented the coarser type of the anticipation\nillustrated by Judas of Galilee whose insurrection had been extinguished\nin blood some years before, yet the movement of Judas did not cease at\nhis death, but troubled the state for sixty years. His two sons, James\nand John, raised the Messianic standard fifteen years or thereabouts\nafter the crucifixion of Jesus, and were themselves crucified. Their\nyounger brother, Menahem, renewed the attempt twenty years later, and so\nfar succeeded that he cut his way to the throne, assumed the part of a\nking, went in royal state to the temple, and but for the fury of his\nfanaticism might have re-erected temporarily the throne of David. But\nthis kind of Messiah, besides being savage, was monotonous. His appeal\nwas to the lower passions; the thoughtful, imaginative, contemplative,\npoetic, were not drawn to him. His followers, adherents not\ndisciples,--might, at the best, have founded a dynasty, they could not\nhave planted a church. The pure enthusiasm of the Christ, his entire\nsingleness of heart, the absence in him of private ambition or\nself-seeking, his confidence in the heavenly character of his mission,\nhis reliance on super-human aid, his sincere persuasion that the purpose\nof his calling would not be thwarted by death, insured his hold on those\nwho had trusted him. They did not lose their conviction that he was the\nMessiah; they anticipated his return, in glory, to complete his work; in\nthat anticipation they waited, watched and prayed. The name \"Christians\"\nwas, we are told, given, in derision, to the believers in Antioch. But\nif they had chosen a name for themselves, they could not have hit on a\nmore precisely descriptive one. \"Christians\" they were; believers that\nthe Christ had come, that the crucified was the Christ, that he would\nreappear and vindicate his claim. This was their single controlling\nthought, the only thought that distinguished them from their countrymen\nwho rejected the Messiahship of their friend. They were Jews, in every\nrespect; Jews of Jews, enthusiastic, devout, pharisaic Jews, the firmest\nof adherents to the Law of Moses, unqualified receivers of tradition,\ndiligent students of the scriptures, constant attendants at the temple\nworship, urgent in supplication, literal in creed, and punctual in\nobservance; acquiescent in the claims of the priesthood, scrupulous in\nall Hebrew etiquette. They were determined that the Master, at his\ncoming, should find them ready.\n\nJames, \"the Lord's brother,\" set an example of sanctity worthy of a\nhigh-priest. In fact, he assumed the position of a priest, and filled it\nwith such austerity that he was called \"the righteous.\" He tasted, says\nHegesippus, neither wine nor strong drink; he ate nothing that had life;\nhis hair was never shorn; his body was never anointed with oil, or\nbathed in water; his garments were of linen, never of wool; so perfect\nwas he in all righteousness that, though no consecrated priest, he was\npermitted to enter the holy place behind the veil of the temple, and\nthere he spent hours in intercession for the people, his knees becoming\nas hard as a camel's from contact with the stone pavement. To those who\nasked him the way to life, he replied: \"Believe that Jesus is the\nChrist.\" When some dissenters protested against this declaration and\nasked him to retract it, he repeated it with stronger emphasis; when the\nmalcontents who revered him, but would have none of his Messiah, raised\na tumult and tried to intimidate him, he reiterated the statement,\nadding: \"He sits in heaven, at the right hand of the Supreme power, and\nwill come in clouds.\" For this testimony, says tradition, he laid down\nhis life.\n\nThe fellow-believers of James imitated him as closely as they could.\nThey were proud of their descent from Abraham; they were tenacious of\nthe privileges granted to the twelve tribes; they kept up their relation\nwith the synagogue; they had faith in forms of observance; they revered\nthe Sabbath; their trust in the literal efficacy of prayer was implicit;\nthey were excessively jealous of intellectual activity outside of their\nnarrow communion; their anticipations were confined to the restoration\nof Israel, and never wandered into the region of social improvement or\nmoral progress; in general ethical and social culture they were not\ninterested.\n\nThey had no ecclesiastical establishment apart from the Jewish Church;\nno separate priesthood, no sacraments, no cultus, no rubric, no\ncalendar, no liturgy. The validity of sacrifice they maintained, the\ndoctrine of sacrifice possessing a deeper significance for them from the\ngrowing faith that their Lord was himself the paschal lamb, the shedding\nof whose blood purchased the remission of sins. Hence a special\nencouragement of the sacerdotal spirit, an exaggerated sense of the\nefficacy of blood, a theory of atonement more searching and absolute\nthan had prevailed in the ancient church. The later doctrine of\natonement in the christian church may have grown from this small but\nvital germ.\n\nThey had no dogma peculiar to themselves, the doctrines of the old\nChurch being all they needed; they had no trinity or beginning of\ntrinity; no christology; no doctrine of Fall; no theory of first and\nsecond Adam; no metaphysic; no philosophy of sin and salvation; no\ninterior mystery of experience. Whatever newness of creed they avowed,\nwas owing to their acknowledgment of the Christ, and consisted in a few\nvery simple inferences from this tenet. Of course even slow-minded,\nliteral, external men could not entertain a belief like that, and not be\npushed by it to certain practical conclusions. The expectation of the\nChrist's coming would necessarily raise questions respecting the\nconditions of acceptance with him, the character of his dominion, the\nduration of it, the social changes incidental to it; but it does not\nappear that speculation on these subjects was carried far. A crude\nmillenarianism developed itself early; a cloudy theory of atonement\nfound favor; for the rest, conjecture, it was little more, dwelt\ncontentedly within the confines of rabbinical lore.\n\nThere was nothing peculiar in their moral precepts or usages, nothing\nthat should effect a change in the received ethics of the nation. Their\nessential creed involved no practical innovation on private or social\nmoralities. The mosaic code was familiar to them from childhood. The\npopular commentaries on it were promulgated from week to week in the\nsynagogues, and their validity was no more questioned by the Christians\nthan by the most orthodox of Jews.\n\nThe daily existence of these people was retired and simple. They had\nfrequent meetings for talk, song, mutual cheer and confirmation; full of\nexpectation and excitement they must have been; wild with memories and\nhopes. For the believers lived out of themselves, in an ideal, a\nsupernatural sphere; their hearts were in heaven with their Master,\nwhose form filled their vision, whose voice they seemed to hear, from\nwhom came, as they fancied, impressions, intimations, influences,\nunspoken but breathed messages interpreted by the soul. They were\nvisionaries. Their life was illusion. They were transported beyond\nthemselves at times, by the prospect of the Lord's nearness. Their minds\nwere dazed; their feelings raised to ecstasy; in vision they saw the\nheavens open and fiery tongues descend. Their small upper chamber seemed\nto tremble and dilate in sympathy with their feelings; the ceiling\nappeared to lift; they were moved by an impulse which they could not\naccount for, and regarded themselves as inspired.\n\nIn these circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that they lived in\ncommunities by themselves, preferring the society of their fellows; that\nthey had a common purse, a common table; that they were ascetic and\ncelibate; that they withdrew from public affairs and from private\nbusiness, and approached nearly to the Essenes, with whom they had much\nin common, perpetuating the habit of monasticism, which became\nafterwards so prominent a feature in the Eastern church.\n\nNor is it surprising that they regarded the intimate friends of their\nChrist with a peculiar veneration, and ascribed to them extraordinary\ngifts. The basis of the future hierarchy was laid in the honor paid to\nthese few men. They were credited with supernatural insight, and with\nthe possession of miraculous power. Their touch was healing; their mere\nshadow comforted; their approval was blessing; their displeasure cursed.\nWhat they ratified was fixed; what they permitted was decreed. Their\nword was law; it was for them to admit and to exclude. The penalty of\nexcommunication was in their hands, to be inflicted at their discretion.\nSuperstition went so far as to concede to them the alternatives of life\nand death. The legend of Ananias and Sapphira is evidence of a credulity\nthat set not reason only, but conscience at defiance. In their\ninfatuation they believed that the Christ above communicated a saving\nspiritual grace to such as the apostles touched with their fingers.\n\nVery singular, but very consistent and logical were the views of death\nentertained by the brotherhood in Christ. As their Lord delayed his\ncoming, the elders grew old and fell asleep. There was a brotherhood of\nthe dead as well as of the living; the living became few; the dead many.\nQuestions arose respecting the destination of those departed. That they\nhad perished was not to be thought of; as little to be thought of was\nthe possibility of their forfeiting their privilege of sharing the\nbelievers' triumph. The resurrection the disciples had always believed\nin. That, at the coming of the Messiah there would be a general\nresurrection of the faithful Israelites from their graves, in field or\nrock, was part of their ancestral faith. But now, the matter was brought\nhome to them with painful reality. The Christ might come at any moment;\nthe dead were their own immediate kindred, their parents and brethren.\nThe problem presented no difficulties to their minds however agitating\nit might be to their hearts. The Lord would come; of that there could be\nno doubt; the dead would rise, that was certain; but in what form? In\nwhat order? Would the living have precedence of them? Where would the\nmeeting take place? How would the dead know that the time of\nresurrection had arrived? The answer came promptly as the question. The\ntrumpet of the angels would proclaim the event to all creatures, visible\nand invisible. The elect would respond to the summons; the gates of\nHades would burst asunder. In etherial forms, lighter than air, more\nradiant than the morning, the faithful who had died \"in the Lord,\" would\nascend; the living would exchange their terrestrial bodies for bodies\ncelestial, and thus \"changed,\" \"in a moment, in the twinkling of an\neye,\" would mount upward to join them, and all together would \"meet the\nLord in the air.\" For the believers the grave had no victory and death\nno sting.\n\nIn all this the Christians were strictly within the circle of Jewish\nthought. The belief in the resurrection wore different aspects in\ndifferent minds; the vision of the hereafter floated many-hued before\nthe imaginations of men. The fiery zealots who \"took the kingdom of\nheaven by violence,\" dreamed of the resurrection of the body, and of\ntangible privileges of dominion in the terrestrial millennium. The\nmilder enthusiasts, who could not believe that flesh and blood could\ninherit the kingdom of God, were constrained to invent a \"spiritual\nworld\" for the accommodation of spiritual bodies. Some conjectured that\nthe etherial forms would mount to their native seat, only at the\ntermination of the thousand years reign; the spiritual world being\nbrought in at the end, as a device of eschatology to dispose finally of\nthe saints who could neither die nor remain longer on earth. Others\nsurmised that the spiritual world would claim its own at once, there\nbeing no place on earth where the risen could live and no occupations in\nwhich they could engage. The cruder faith was the earlier.\n\nThe fanatics, as described in the second Book of Maccabees, an\napocryphal writing of the second century before Christ, hoped for a\ncorporeal resurrection and a visible supremacy. Of seven sons, who, with\ntheir mother, were barbarously executed because they refused to deny\ntheir religion by eating swines' flesh, one declares: \"The King of the\nworld shall raise us up who have died for his laws, into everlasting\nlife;\" another, holding forth his hands (to be cut off), said\ncourageously, \"These I had from heaven, and for his laws I despise them,\nand from him I hope to receive them again.\" The next shouts: \"It is good\nbeing put to death by men, to look for hope from God, to be raised up\nagain by him; as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life.\"\nFinally, when all the seven have died heroically, with words of similar\nimport on their lips, the mother is put to death, having exhorted her\nyoungest born to faithfulness with the exhortation: \"Doubtless the\nCreator of the world who formed the generation of man, and found out the\nbeginning of all things, will also, of his own mercy, give you breath\nand life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws'\nsake.\" The same book records the suicide of Razis: \"One of the elders of\nJerusalem, a lover of his countrymen, and a man of very good report, who\nfor his kindness was called a Father of the Jews, for in former times he\nhad been accused of Judaism, and did boldly jeopard his body and life\nwith all vehemency for the religion of the Jews;\" \"choosing rather to\ndie manfully than to come into the hands of the wicked, to be abused\notherwise than beseemed his noble birth, he fell on his sword.\nNevertheless, while there was yet breath within him, being inflamed with\nanger, he rose up, and though his blood gushed out like spouts of water,\nand his wounds were grievous, yet he ran through the midst of the\nthrong, and, standing upon a steep rock, when as his blood was now\nquite gone, he plucked out his bowels, and taking them in both his\nhands, he cast them upon the throng, and calling upon the Lord of life\nand spirit to restore him those again, he thus died.\"\n\nThe angel of the book of Daniel calls up a fairer vision: \"Many of them\nthat sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting\nlife, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise\nshall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many\nto righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever.\"\n\nSomething like this, perhaps, was the anticipation of the Christ\nsketched in the last chapter. The personal conception is shadowy. There\nis nothing to indicate positively that he departed from the usual\nopinion of a physical resurrection and a kingdom of heaven on earth, a\nperiod of terrestrial happiness under the rule of Jehovah. The\ndeclaration to the thief on the cross: \"This day thou shalt be with me\nin Paradise,\" belongs to a later tradition, corresponding to the ideas\nof Paul. The parable of Dives and Lazarus must be assigned to the same\ncircle of doctrine. The saying respecting children, \"Their angels always\nbehold the face of my father in heaven,\" conveys no more than the belief\nin guardian spirits. The \"angels\" are not departed children, but the\nwatchers over the lives of living ones. The reply given to the\nSadducees, in Matt. XXII., \"In the resurrection they neither marry, nor\nare given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven,\" implies\nthat the temporal condition of the Messiah's subjects will differ in\nimportant respects from their present social estate, but does not\nsuggest a celestial locality for its organization; and the declaration\nthat follows: \"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,\"\naffirms merely that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not annihilated, that\nthey are, or will be, alive; but how, where, or when, is left undecided.\nThe expression, \"Thy kingdom come,\" in the paternoster, so different\nfrom the latter petition: \"May we come into thy kingdom,\" looks towards\nan earthly paradise. The succeeding phrase, \"Thy will be done on earth\nas it is in heaven,\" points in the same direction. It is probable that\nthe Christ, living and expecting to live, contemplated the establishment\nof his Messianic dominion in Palestine. After his death and\ndisappearance, the thoughts of his friends turned elsewhither, and with\nan increasing steadiness, as his return was delayed, and the\nprobabilities of their going to him outweighed the probabilities of his\ncoming to them. The change of expectation was, it is likely, a gradual,\nsilent, and unperceived one, effected slowly, and not completed till a\nnew conception of the Christ supplanted the old one, and transformed\nevery feature of the Messianic belief. In less than twenty-five years\nafter the death of Jesus, this change was so far effected that it was\ncapable of full literary expression. The writings that publish it, are\nthe genuine letters of Paul, and other scriptures produced under the\ninspiration of his idea.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nPAUL'S NEW DEPARTURE.\n\n\nThere is reason to think, as we have said, that the first Messianic\nimpulse would have spent itself ineffectually in a few years, had not a\nfresh impulse been given by a new conception of the Messiah. The Christ\noutlined in the earliest literature of the New Testament would hardly\nhave founded a permanent church, or given his name to a distinct\nreligion. A new conception came, in due time, from an unexpected\nquarter, through a man who was both Jew and Greek; Jew by parentage,\nnurture, training and genius; Greek by birth-place, residence and\nassociation; a man well versed in scripture, a pupil of approved rabbis,\nfamiliar with the talmud, and deeply interested in talmudical\nspeculation; a Pharisee of the straitest sect; an enthusiast--yes, a\nfanatic by temperament; on the other hand, a mind somewhat expanded by\nintercourse with the people and the literature of other nations. Paul's\nfeeling on the \"Christ question\" was always intense. He made it a\npersonal matter, even in his comparative youth; distinguishing himself\nby his zeal in behalf of correct opinion on the subject. He appears,\nfirst, a young man, as a persecutor of the Jews who believed that the\nChrist had actually come, and who were waiting for his return in clouds.\nThat idea seemed to him visionary and dangerous; he made it his business\nto exterminate it by violence, if necessary. But the fury of his\ndemonstration proved his interest in the general idea. He was at heart a\nMessianic believer, though not in that style. A Messianic believer he\ncontinued to be, but to the end as little as at first, in that style. To\nthe ordinary belief he never was \"converted;\" his repudiation of it was\nperhaps at no time less vehement than it was at the beginning; as his\nown thought matured, his rejection of the faith he persecuted in his\nyouth, became it seems more deliberate, if less violent.\n\nAs he pursued one phase of the Messianic expectation, another aspect of\nit burst upon him with the splendor of a revelation, and determined his\ncareer. The man who had breathed fury against one type, became the\napostle of another. The same fiery zeal that blasted the one, warmed the\nother into life. In the book of the \"Acts of the Apostles,\" the first\nmartyr at whose stoning Paul assisted, bore the Greek name \"Stephen,\"\nwhence, as well as from other indications, it has been surmised by Baur\nand others that he was a precursor of the future \"Gentile party,\"\npursued and slain by the \"orthodox\" on account of his infidelity to the\ncause of Hebrew national exclusiveness. If this conjecture be admitted,\nthe deed Paul had abetted, may have been the immediate cause of his own\nmoral revulsion of feeling. The slain over-came the slayer. The dying\nhand committed to the fierce bystander the torch it could carry no\nfurther. The murdered Greek raised up the apostle to the Greeks, thus\navenging himself by sending his adversary to martyrdom in the same cause\nfor which he himself bled. In religious fervors such reactions have been\nfrequent.\n\nFor Paul was, from first to last, the same person, in no natural feature\nof mind or character changed. His religious belief remained essentially,\neven incidentally unaltered. A Pharisee he was born, and a Pharisee he\ncontinued. The pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection was the corner\nstone of his system, the beginning, middle and end of his faith, the\nstarting point of his creed. His conception of God was the ordinary\nconception, unqualified, unmitigated, uncompromised. The divine\nsovereignty never suffered weakening at his hands. One can hardly open\nthe epistle to the Jewish Christians in Rome, without coming across some\ntremendous assertion of the absolute supremacy of God. Read the passage\nin the first chapter, 20-26 verses; in the second chapter, 6-12 verses;\nin the ninth chapter, 14-23 verses; in the eleventh chapter, first\nverse and onward. Read 1 Corin., fifteenth chapter, 24-29 verses. The\nold fashioned Jewish conception is expressed in language simply\nrevolting in its bald inhumanity. The views of Divine Providence set\nforth in some of these sentences are anthropomorphitic to a degree that\nis amazing in an intellectual man of his age and race. His discussions\nof fate and free-will betoken the sternness of a dogmatic, rather than\nthe discernment of a philosophic, mind. His notion of history has the\nnarrowness of the national character. His ethics are taken from the law\nof Moses, and not from the more benignant versions of it. The grandest\nethical chapter he ever wrote, the twelfth chapter of Romans, contains\nno less than three instances of grave infidelity to the highest standard\nof morality in his own scriptures. Rabbi Hillel said: \"Love peace, and\npursue peace; love mankind, and bring them near the law. The moral\ncondition of the world depends on three things,--Truth, Justice, and\nPeace.\" Paul says: \"If it be possible, _so much as lyeth in you_, live\npeaceably with all men,\" implying clearly that it might not always be\npossible, and in such cases was not to be expected. The tacit proviso in\nthe phrase \"so much as lyeth in you,\" discharges the obligation of its\nimperative character; as if conscious that the duty might prove too much\nfor the moral power, he will not impose it. It is written in the\nTalmud: \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor; even if he be a criminal, and\nhas forfeited his life, practise charity towards him in the last\nmoments.\" Paul drops far below this when he bids his disciples, \"Avenge\nnot yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath\" (make room for wrath\nthat is wrath indeed.) \"For it is written, 'vengeance is mine; I will\nrepay, saith the Lord.'\" Therefore (because the Lord's vengeance will be\nmore terrible than yours), \"if thine enemy hunger, feed him: if he\nthirst, give him drink; for in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire\non his head.\" That is, by showing kindness you will inflict on him\ntenfold agony!\n\nSuch a disciple would not adorn the membership of a modern Peace\nSociety. The language ascribed to him in Ephesians bristles with\nmilitary metaphor; \"Fight the good fight of faith,\" \"The helmet of\nsalvation,\" \"The sword of the Spirit,\" \"Armor of light.\"\n\nIn the days of our own anti-slavery conflict, his dictum, \"Slaves obey\nyour masters, in fear and trembling, in singleness of heart,\" was a\ntower of strength and a fountain of refreshment to many an upholder of\nthe patriarchal system. The later Christians in the West could safely\njustify their quiet toleration of the system of slavery in the Roman\nEmpire by the precepts of the foremost apostle. If the genuineness of\nthe epistle to Philemon could be maintained, the case would wear a\ndifferent look. But it is much more than doubtful whether even that\nqualified humanity proceeded from his pen.\n\nIn our own generation the apostle is a serious stumbling block in the\nway of \"evangelical\" women who are friendly to the aspirations of their\nsex. He showed the most stubborn Hebrew principles on this subject.\n\"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands\"; \"Let your women keep\nsilence in the churches; if they wish to learn anything, let them ask\ntheir husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the\nchurch.\" \"It is permitted them to be under obedience.\" The Hindoo\nscripture spoke better: \"Where women are honored, there the deities are\npleased. Where they are dishonored there all religious acts become\nfruitless.\"\n\nHow can the most conservative Republicans accept as teacher a man who\ncounsels religious men, in _proportion as they are religious_, to\nsurrender their full, unqualified, sincere allegiance to established\nauthorities because they are established, however despotic, ferocious\nnay vile they may be; even to such despotisms as that of\nNero;--maintaining that resistance to such is equivalent to resisting\nthe ordinance of God?--giving this not as the counsel of prudence, but\nas the dictate of conscience, thus proclaiming exemption from criticism\nor assault, for inhuman tyrannies? Nothing short of this is inculcated\nby the sweeping declaration: \"Let every soul be subject to the higher\npowers: for there is no power but of God; the established powers are\nordained of God.\" No doubt the bidding was given in view of a turbulent\nor insurrectionary spirit among the Israelites in Rome, but it is given\nwithout explanation or limit. It ratifies the divine right of kings:\nsanctions the principle that might makes right. Paul was an enthusiast\nfor ideas; not a theologian, not a social reformer, but one whose zeal\nwas spent on doctrines. Prevailingly intellectual, his whole nature was\nfused by the electric touch of a new thought.\n\nPaul's acquaintance with the Talmud is evidenced by his writings. His\nuse of allegory, his fanciful analogies, his mystical interpretations,\nhis play on words, his passion for types and symbols, his ingenious\nspeculations on history and eschatology, betray his familiarity with\nthat curious literature. He found a mine of precious material in the\nmythical Adam Caedmon, the progenitor, the prototype, the \"federal head\"\nof the race, the man who was not a man but a microcosm, created by\nspecial act from sifted clay; a creature whose erected head touched the\nfirmament, whose extended body reached across the earth; a being to whom\nall save Satan did obeisance; who, but for his transgression, would have\nenjoyed an immortality on earth; whose sin entailed on the human race\nall the evils, material and moral, that have cursed the world; the\nprimordial man, who contained in himself the germs of all mankind;\nwhose corruption tainted the nature of generations of descendants. The\nTalmud exhausts speculation on this prodigious personality. The doctrine\nof the christian church for fifteen hundred years was not so much\ncolored as shaped by the rabbis who exercised their subtlety on this\ntempting theme. Philo, a contemporary of Paul, is in no respect behind\nthe most imaginative in his conjectures on this sublime legend. That\nPaul, a student of the Talmud, fell in with them, should excite no\nsurprise. That he added nothing is due probably to the fact that there\nwas nothing to add.\n\nFrom the Talmud, also, and from other rabbinical writings, Paul derived\na complete angelology, a department of speculation in which the Jewish\nliterature after the captivity was exceedingly prolific--Metathron,\nSandalphon, Akathriel, Suriel, were familiar to his mind. It is a bold\nsuggestion made by Dr. Isaac M. Wise, the Hebrew rabbi fresh from the\nTalmud,[1] that Metathron,--[Greek: meta thronon], near the throne,\ncalled by eminent titles, \"king of the angels,\" \"prince of the\ncountenance,\" impressed Paul's imagination and was the original of his\nChrist. Between this supreme angel, co-ordinate with deity and\nspiritually akin to him, and the Christ of Paul's conception, the\ncorrespondence seems to be too close to be accidental; so close,\nindeed, that some, unable to deny or to confute it, are driven to\nsurmise that the first conception originated with the apostle. It is\nmore probable however, though not provable, that the rabbinical idea was\nthe earlier, and that the apostle took that as well as the Adam Caedmon\nfrom the rabbis. The \"prince of angels\" precisely met his requirement as\na counter-vailing power to Adam, and supplied a ground for his theory of\nthe second Adam, the \"living spirit,\" the \"Lord from Heaven,\" the primal\nman of a new creation, the first born of a new progeny, the originator\nof a \"law of life\" which should check and counteract the \"law of sin and\ndeath.\" The second Man was the counterpart of the first.\n\n[Footnote 1: Origin of Christianity, p. 335-341.]\n\nHe is a man, yet is he no man; his flesh is only \"the likeness of sinful\nflesh,\" liable to death, but not implicating the personality in dying.\nHe is the spiritual, heavenly, ideal man; celestial, glorious, image of\nGod, translucent, sinless, impeccable; pre-existent, of course; without\nfather or mother; an expression of divinity; a creator of new worlds for\nthe habitation of the \"Sons of God.\" His birth is an entrance into\nhumanity from an abode of light. The mission of this transcendent being\nis, in a word, to break the force of transmitted sin, and reverse the\ndestiny of the race. He imparts the principle of life, which is to\nrestore all things. A multitude of incidental points are involved in\nthis fundamental one, points of theology, anthropology, history,\nethics, metaphysics, that present no difficulty to one who has this key.\nThe long disquisitions on the Mosaic law, the discussions on the\nprivileges of the Hebrew race and the rights of other races were\nnecessary. The familiar doctrine of the resurrection derived fresh\ninterest from association with the general theory, inasmuch as it\nsupplied a ground-work for the expectation that the glorified One would\nreappear; and the hypothesis of a \"spiritual\" body, ventured and fully\ndeveloped by the rabbis, even illustrated by analogies of the \"corn of\nwheat\" which the apostle makes so much of in the fifteenth chapter of I.\nCorinthians, supplied all else that was wanting to complete the scheme.\nThe Christ, being sinless, was held to be incorruptible; death had no\ndominion over him, was in fact in his case, an \"excarnation,\" the\npreparation for an ascent to the realm of light he came from, and to his\nseat at the right hand of his Father, instead of being a descent into\nthe region of darkness to which mortals are doomed. The doctrine of last\nthings follows from the doctrine of first things. They who are one with\nChrist through faith share his deathlessness. If they die, it is merely\na temporary retirement, in which they await the coming of their Lord,\nwho will in his own time call them out of their prison house. The larger\nnumber, however, were not, in the apostle's belief, destined to die at\nall; but might look as he did, to be transfigured, by the putting off\nof their vile bodies, and the putting on of glorious bodies like that\nof the great forerunner. In his amplifications on this theme, Paul shows\nlittle originality, and adds nothing important to the material lying\nready to his hand.\n\nThe advantage his scheme gave him as a preacher to the Gentiles is too\nobvious to be dwelt on. As a Greek by birth and culture, he was\ninterested in the fate of other nations besides the Jews. A system of\nreligion adapted to the traditions and satisfactory to the hopes of a\npeculiar people,--a national, exclusive religion in the benefits whereof\nnone but Jews might share, and from whose grace no lineal descendant of\nAbraham could be excluded, did not commend itself to this man, half Jew,\nhalf Greek. The faith that obtained his allegiance, and awoke his zeal\nmust possess a _human_ character by virtue of which its message could be\ncarried to all mankind. Such a faith his new theory of the Christ gave\nhim. He could say to his Greek friends: \"This religion that I bring you\nis no Hebrew peculiarity. Its Christ is no son of David, but a son of\nGod; its heaven is no Messianic kingdom in Judaea, but a region of light\nabove the skies; its principle is faith, not obedience to a ceremonial\nor legal code; it dispenses entirely with the requirements of the law of\nMoses; makes no account of sacrifices or priests; presumes on no\nacquaintance with Hebrew scriptures, or reverence for Hebrew men;\nquestions of circumcision and uncircumcision are trivial and\nimpertinent. The religion of Christ addresses you as men, not as Jewish\nmen; it appeals to the universal sense of moral and spiritual infirmity,\nand offers a moral and spiritual, not a technical deliverance; instead\nof limiting, it will enlarge you; instead of binding, it will emancipate\nyou; its genius is liberty, through which you are set free from\nceremonialism, ritualism, dogmatism, moralism, and are made partakers of\na new intellectual life.\"\n\nNot all at once did this scheme unfold itself before the apostle's\nvision. Gradually it came to him as he meditated alone, or experimented\nwith it on listeners in remote places. Naturally, he avoided the\nassociations of the people he had persecuted, and the teachers they\nlooked up to. He had nothing to learn from them; he understood their\nsystem and was dissatisfied with it, in short, rejected it. Their Jewish\nMessiah, literal, national, hebraic, was not an attractive personage to\nhis mind. The promise of felicity in a Jewish kingdom of heaven was not\nenchanting. The daily life of the believers in Jerusalem was formal,\nunnatural, repulsive to one who had \"walked large\" in foreign cities and\nrealms of thought. The apostles, Peter, James, John, had nothing\nimportant to tell him that he did not know already. The earthly details\nof the life of Jesus might have interested him, but the interior\ncharacter and the human significance of the Christ were the main thing,\nand these he may have thought himself more in the way of appreciating by\na temporary retirement to the depths of his own consciousness. Having\nmatured his thoughts, he did put himself in communication with the\noriginal disciples, with what result is frankly stated in his letter to\nthe Galatians: \"To those who seemed to be somewhat (what they were is no\nconcern of mine, God accepteth no man's person), but who in conference\nadded nothing to me, I did not give way, in subjection, no, not for an\nhour.\" So heated he becomes, as he remembers this interview, that he can\nscarcely write coherently about it. The two conceptions of the Christ\nand his office were so far apart, that he did not, to his dying day,\nform intimate relations with the teachers of the primitive gospel. They\ntaught an uncongenial scheme.\n\nFrom the first, Paul's sphere of action was the Gentile world to which\nhis message was adapted. If his first appeal was addressed to Jews, it\nwas simply because Christianity, as he understood it, being an outgrowth\nfrom Jewish thought, a development of Jewish tradition, should naturally\nbe more intelligible and more welcome to them than to people who had no\nhistorical or literary preparation for it. But he took the broad ground\nwith them, and addressed his word to outsiders the moment stubbornly\ndogmatical Jews declined to receive it on his terms. The attempt made\nby the author of the \"Acts of the Apostles,\" to show that Paul modified\nor qualified his scheme to bring it into harmony with the older scheme\nthat he supplanted, fails from the circumstance that the writer discerns\nno peculiarity in his theory of the Christ, and consequently misses\ncompletely the ground of any antagonism.\n\nThis is written in the persuasion that the \"Acts of the Apostles\" is not\ntrustworthy as history; has in fact no historical intent, but belongs to\nthe class of writings that may be called conciliatory, or mediatorial,\ndesigned to bring opposing views together, to heal divisions, and smooth\nover rough places. By pulling hard at both ends of the string, dragging\nPeter towards Paul, and Paul towards Peter, ascribing to both the same\nopinions, imputing to both the same designs, and passing both through\nthe same experiences, the author would make his readers believe that\nthey stood on the same foundation. The grounds of the opinion above\nstated cannot be given here; but there are grounds for it, and solid\nones, as any one may discover who will take the pains to look at Edward\nZeller's essay on the \"Acts,\" or any other argument from an unprejudiced\npoint of view. The conclusion may be arrived at, however, by a shorter\nprocess, namely, by taking Paul's Christology as given by himself in his\nown letters, and then considering how completely it is excluded from the\nbook. It seems to the present writer nothing less than certain, as\nplain as any point of literary criticism can be, that the \"Acts of the\nApostles\" is not to be relied on for information respecting the life and\nopinions of the apostle Paul. In this opinion writers belonging to very\ndifferent schools of religious philosophy, Mackay, for example, and\nMartineau, are cordially agreed. This must henceforth be regarded as one\nof the points established. The firmer the apprehension of Paul's\npeculiarity, the stronger is the conviction that the description of his\nconduct in the book of \"Acts\" must be fanciful. If he tells the truth,\nas there is no reason to doubt, the unknown author of the \"Acts\"\nromances.\n\nThe necessity that Paul was under of commending his christology to the\nJews, a self-imposed necessity in part, inasmuch as his own genius being\nJewish, imposed it on him, embarrassed the movement of his mind to such\na degree that he was never able to do perfect justice to his own theory.\nMuch time was spent in explaining his conduct to orthodox Jews, or in\nanswering questions raised by hebrew casuistry. The epistle to the\nRomans, the most labored of his compositions, is a long argument\naddressed to his countrymen in Rome, with the design of persuading them\nthat Jehovah was quite justified in accepting Gentiles who conformed to\nhis requirements, and in rejecting children of Abraham who did not. This\nis the burden of the letter. The argument is lighted up by splendid\nbursts of eloquence, and diversified by keen remarks on points of\npsychology. But, omitting two or three of the chapters and scattered\npassages in others, the remainder is intellectually arid and devoid of\nhuman interest. The same may be said of the letter to the Galatians. The\nepistles to the Thessalonians, and those to the Corinthians, are\noccupied chiefly with matters of local and incidental concern. It is\nprobable that Paul's genius was disastrously circumscribed within hebrew\nlimits after all; that he never completely emancipated himself even from\nthe old time traditions of his people; that the Jewish half of the man\nwas not the weaker half. A philosopher he was not; a theologian, in the\ngreat sense, he was not; a metaphysician he was not; a psychologist he\nwas not. He was an apostle, a preacher. The problems he discussed were\nformal rather than vital, and the spirit in which he discussed them was\nthe temper of the dogmatist rather than that of the seer. However this\nmay be, it may be affirmed that his system contained no strictly\noriginal ideas; that his leading thoughts, and even the phases of his\nthought, were borrowed from the literature of his nation, or, at least,\nmay be found there.\n\nIt is a frequent remark that, but for St. Paul, Christianity might have\nhad no life out of Judaea; which is tantamount to saying that it might\nhave had no prolonged or extended life at all, but would have perished\nas an incidental phase of Judaism. The remark is essentially just; at\nthe same time it must be remembered that the Christianity which Paul\ndevised and planted was a system quite unlike that of his predecessors,\nthough still another phase of Judaism, a divergent and cosmopolitan\nphase.\n\nOther pieces of literature, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Hebrews,\nwhich, whether the compositions of Paul or not, contain developments of\nhis thought, and may be called \"Pauline,\" carry further his central\nspeculation and apply his principle to the new problems that presented\nthemselves in the social life of the religion; yet these do not go\nbeyond the lines of Jewish thought. The significant passage in\nPhilippians, \"Who, although he was in the form of God, thought not that\nan equality with God, was a thing he ought greedily to grasp at,\"\nsuggests the Greek mythus of Lucifer, who fell because, being already\nthe brightest of beings, he was discontented with a formal inferiority\nof rank. His crime consisted in rapaciously grasping at a power which\nwas, in all but the name, his own. The Christ, in contrast, was\nsatisfied with the substance; he willingly resigned pretension to the\nposition. But the Greek mythus was the reflection of a legend from the\nfarther East, and came to this author more naturally through Judaism\nthan through Paganism. According to Neander's classification the\nGnostics, from whom this theosophic conception came, were Judaistic.\nGieseler's classification leads to the same inference, for the\nAlexandrian Gnosis was the product of Greek thought, blended with\nJewish. The classification of Gieseler has regard to the source whence\nthe speculation came; that of Neander to the tendency of the\nspeculation. In whichever aspect we view the myth, its Jewish character\nis apparent. The writer has pushed his speculations into new fields that\nyet lay within the ancestral domain. He describes the Christ as being\nbut the semblance of a man, in \"fashion\" a man, not in substance. The\nthought is a further development, yet a strictly logical one, of Paul's\nidea that the Christ was made \"in the likeness of sinful flesh.\" The two\nexpressions are parallel, in fact identical; \"body,\" in Pauline phrase\nbeing, from the nature of the case, \"sinful body.\" The writer speaks of\nthe dominion of the Christ as extended over the three spheres, heaven,\nearth, and the under-world; scarcely thereby enlarging the scope of a\nprevious thought, for as much as these spheres were comprehended in the\ndominion of the Christ who \"created the worlds,\" the new worlds that\nconstituted the new creation, whereof he was Lord.\n\nThe letter to the Hebrews, an exceedingly elaborate exposition of the\nclose relation between the new faith and the old, an argument and a plea\nfor the new faith as containing in substance all that the old contained\nin form, is Jewish in coloring throughout, an exaggeration of Jewish\nideas. The argument is that Christianity excels Judaism in its own\nexcellencies. The Christ is called \"high priest,\" \"perpetual priest,\"\npossessing the power to confer endless life. By the sacrifice of himself\nhe has entered at once into the holy of holies. He has tasted death for\nevery man--another way of saying that he has deprived death for every\nman of its bitterness. He has destroyed the devil who held the kingdom\nof death. He has reconciled man with God by abolishing death, and with\ndeath sin, which is the strength of death. The Christ is represented as\nthe author of salvation to all that obey him; he lives forever to make\nintercession; his blood purges men's consciences from reliance on dead\nworks; he, once for all, has devoted himself to bear the sins of many;\nhe will come again, and bring salvation to such as wait for him; all\nthese are merely completed expressions of the idea enunciated by Paul.\n\nThe Christ himself is described in this epistle as \"the appointed heir\nof all things;\" \"the brightness of God's glory and the express image of\nHis person;\" \"upholding all things by the word of His power;\" \"the First\nBegotten;\" \"the object of adoration by the angels.\" To support this\nview, the Old Testament is ingeniously quoted and misapplied. The\ninfluence of Jewish thought appears also in the passages that describe\nthe Christ as an agent, appointed to his office; an official, \"sitting\nat the right hand of the Majesty on High;\" as fulfilling His mission\nand obtaining His glory through suffering; as subjected to human\nexperiences of temptation; as strictly sub-ordinate to God.\n\nThe scriptures entitled \"Colossians\" and \"Ephesians\" betray still\ngreater familiarity with Alexandro-Jewish conceptions, and a yet deeper\nsympathy with them. The Christ is here \"the image of God, the first-born\nof every creature.\" It is declared that \"by Him were all things created\nthat are in heaven and on earth; things visible and invisible; thrones,\ndominions, principalities, powers; by Him and for Him they were\ncreated.\" \"He is far above all principality, and power, and might, and\ndominion, and every name that is named, whether in this world or the\nworld to come.\" He is \"all in all.\" He is the pleroma, the fulness, the\nabyss of possibility. \"The fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him\nvisibly.\" He exhausts the divine capacity of expression. He is the\nreality of God. Towards mankind he is the reconciler. In him \"all things\nare gathered together in one.\" By the blood of his cross he has made\npeace and reconciled all things to himself; things on earth and things\nin heaven. In a striking passage, the writer of \"Ephesians\" describes\nthe Christ as first descending into the under world to release the\ncaptives bound in the chains of Satan, and thence ascending up on high\nand sending down gifts to men.\n\nBoth of these compositions abound in Gnostic phraesology. The abstruse\nterms \"Mystery,\" \"Wisdom,\" \"AEon,\" \"Prince of the Powers\" recur again and\nagain, and always with the cabalistic meaning. The writers are caught in\nthe meshes of Oriental speculation, and apparently make no effort to\nextricate themselves. On the contrary, they welcome their enthralment,\ntaking the binding cords to be guiding strings towards the truth. So\nfar, again, instead of escaping from the Jewish tradition we are\ntethered to it more securely than before. The literature of the New\nTestament is seen to be still a continuation and completion of the\nliterature of the Old. The earliest form of the Messianic doctrine is\ncompletely distanced. Scarcely a trace of it remains. Of the throne of\nDavid not a word. Not a word of Moses and the Prophets, of the\nhistorical fulfilment of ancient prediction, of the temple worship, of\nthe chosen people. Pharisees and Sadducees are alike omitted. The very\nword \"kingdom,\" as denoting a visible Messianic reign, is dropped. But\nthe territory of Judaism has not been abandoned. Galilee is deserted;\nJerusalem is overthrown; but the schools of the rabbins are open.\n\nIt will be remarked that the moral teaching is more vague and mystical\nthan it was in the early time. The theological spirit prevails over the\nhuman; the ecclesiastical supersedes the ethical. Practical principle\nis postponed to theoretical doctrine. The virtues prescribed are\nghostly, technical; the graces of a church, not the qualities of a\nbrotherhood. The intellectual air is thinner and more difficult to\ninhale. The spiritual atmosphere is not inspiring. Intelligence can make\nnothing of writing like this: \"The husband is the head of the wife, even\nas Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Saviour of the body.\nTherefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject\nin all things to their husbands. Husbands love your wives, even as\nChrist also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might\nsanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word; that He\nmight present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or\nwrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without\nblemish.\" The absence of rational ground for duty in the most familiar\nrelations of life could not be more explicitly declared than in a\npassage like this. That such an age should have had a scientific system\nof morality cannot be expected; but that the traditional system should\nhave been lost, and a fantastical one set up in its place, is a\ntestimony to the influence of the mystical spirit. The fanciful morality\nof a small and enthusiastic body may be interesting to the members of\nthe body and influential on their conduct; but it is no evidence of\nhealth in the moral constitution of the generation. The representation\nof the Christian warfare as a conflict \"not against flesh and\nblood,\"--that is, against organized evil in society and the State,--\"but\nagainst principalities, against powers, against the princes of darkness,\nagainst wicked spirits that dwell in the air,\" is another evidence that\nconscience had become visionary. Such reasoning is of a piece with the\nargument for there being four gospels and no more, namely, that there\nwere four quarters of the heaven, and four winds; or with the argument\nfor perpetual virginity, that it supplied the Church with vestals. Such\ntheologising shows how far speculation may be separated from reality and\nyet be entertained by human minds.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nTHE LAST GOSPEL.\n\n\nThe author of the fourth Gospel is unknown, but it is incredible that\nthis wonderful book, wonderful for finish of literary execution as well\nas for vigor of intellectual conception, was written by a Galilean\nfisherman; a man of brooding and morbid disposition, whose intemperate\nzeal earned for him the title \"son of thunder;\" who, according to Luke,\nproposed to call down fire from heaven to consume certain Samaritans\nthat declined to receive the master; who, according to the same\nauthority, rebuked certain others that conjured by the Christ's name,\nbut did not join his company; who, through his mother, asked for one of\nthe best seats in the \"kingdom;\" a man who was most intimately\nassociated with the James described in a former chapter; a man who late\nin life, had a reputation for intolerance which started a tradition of\nhim to the effect that being in the public bath, and seeing enter the\nheretic Cerinthus, he rushed out, calling on all others to follow, if\nthey would not be overwhelmed by the ruin such a blasphemer would pull\ndown on their heads. All the traditions respecting John are to the same\npurport; his constant association with James and Peter, both disciples\nof the narrowest creed; his advocacy of chiliasm, the doctrine of the\nmillennial reign of a thousand years, as testified to by Ephesian\npresbyters on the authority of Irenaeus; the description of him, reported\nby Eusebius, as a \"high priest wearing the mitre,\" standing in the order\nof succession therefore as a hierarch of the ancient dispensation, a\nchurchman maintaining the ancient symbolical rites.\n\nThat such a composition as the fourth Gospel was written by such a man,\nin his old age too, the laws of literary criticism cannot admit. To the\npresent writer the ungenuineness of the fourth Gospel has for several\nyears seemed as distinctly proved as any point in literary criticism can\nbe. To maintain the Johannean origin of the book, it must be assumed\nthat the apostle lived to an extreme old age, nearly double the full\nthree score years and ten allotted to mankind; that his entire nature\nchanged in the interval between his youth and his senility; that,\nwithout studying in the schools, he became a profound adept in\nspeculative philosophy; and that by the same miraculous bestowment, he\nacquired a skill in letters surpassing that of any in his generation,\nfar surpassing that of Paul, who was an educated man, and completely\ncasting into the shade Philo, the best scholar of a former era. All\nthis, too, must be assumed, for there is not a fragment of the evidence\nto support the bold presumption of authorship.\n\nThe book belongs nearer to the middle than the beginning of the second\ncentury, and is the result of an attempt to present the Christ as the\nincarnate Word of God. The author is not obliged to go far to find his\nmaterials; they lie ready shaped to his hand in the writings of Philo\nand the Gnostics of his century. The thread of Hebrew tradition, has, by\nthis time, become exceedingly thin; vestiges of the popular Jewish\nconception appear, but faintly, here and there. Nicodemus recognizes the\ndivine character of the Christ by his power to work miracles. The Christ\nrespects the tradition which accorded special privileges to the genuine\n\"children of Abraham;\" he declares to the woman of Samaria that\n\"salvation is of the Jews;\" he announces that eternal life consists in\nthe knowledge of God, and the acceptance of his Son. Moses is said to\nhave written of the Christ. Father Abraham rejoiced to see his day.\nIsaiah sang his glory, and spake of him. The brazen serpent is a type of\nhis mission to deliver.\n\nFor the rest, the conceptions of deity, of providence, of salvation, of\nthe eternal world, are quite different from the recognized Hebrew\nconceptions--the title given to God sixty times in the gospel, while\nthe word \"God,\" occurs less than twenty, is \"Father,\" and this term is\nused, not in the sense of Matthew's \"Our Father in Heaven,\" which\ndescribes the Old Testament Jehovah under his more amiable aspect, but\nrather as designating the _abyss of potential being_, as the term is\nemployed in the trinitarian formula, in which the Godhead is broken up\ninto three distinctions; the declaration \"God is Spirit,\" or, as the\nlanguage equally well permits, \"Spirit is God,\" intimates that the\nindividuality of God has disappeared, that the idea of deity has become\nintellectual. The one hundred and thirty-ninth psalm expresses perhaps\nas mystical an apprehension of God as the old Hebrew thought admits of,\nbut that psalm retains the divine individuality; the limits are nowhere\ntransgressed; it is a sympathetic, regardful eye that searches the\nsecret place, and an attentive mind that notes the unarticulated\nthought. The intelligence loses no point of clearness in becoming\npenetrative. But in the fourth Gospel, the individuality is gone\naltogether. The Father \"loveth,\" but with an abstract, impersonal\nsympathy; the Father \"draweth,\" but with an organic, elemental\nattraction; the Father \"hath life in himself,\" and hath given the Son to\n\"have life in himself;\" but neither the possession nor the communication\nof this power implies the bestowal of a concrete gift. The Father\n\"judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son\"--a phrase\nintimating that he had gone into retirement, had withdrawn from active\ninterest in human concerns, had sunk into the depths of the Absolute.\nThe expression \"God is Spirit,\" taken alone, conveys no idea that is not\ncontained in the Hebrew conception of the formless Jehovah; but when\ntaken in connection with other expressions, it is seen to convey\nsomething more, and something different. The formless God may be\nstrictly local; the \"Spirit\" is diffused.\n\nIn this book, the Christ takes the place of God, as the revealed or\nmanifest God; he is the Logos, the incarnate word. \"He was with God in\nthe beginning.\" \"All things were made by him.\" \"In him was life, and the\nlife was the light of men.\" \"He hath life in himself.\" He is the only\nbegotten son, who came down from heaven; he is in heaven. All judgment\nis committed to him; in him the divine glory is manifest; apart from him\nis no spiritual life; he is the vine, the door; he is the intercessor\nthrough whom prayer must be transmitted in order to be made availing.\n\nThe divine presence is taken out of nature, and transferred to the\nspiritual world; God is made ecclesiastical and dogmatic. Men are saved,\nnot by natural piety and excellence, but by faith in the Christ as the\nLogos. The whole sum of Christianity is conveyed in this one position:\n_the manifestation of the Divine Glory in the Only Begotten Son_. This\nmanifestation is of itself, the coming of salvation, the gift of God's\nlife to mankind. By this, the Christ overcomes the powers of darkness\nand evil. He has come a light into the world; by him come grace and\ntruth; to believe in him is a sign of God's working. He that cometh to\nhim shall never hunger; he that believeth on him shall never thirst. It\nis enough that blind men believe; to die, believing in him, is to live;\nto live, believing in him, is to be saved from the power of death, and\nmade immortal. To believe in him is the same thing as to believe in the\nFather. Not to believe in him, is to be consigned to spiritual death\nwith sinners; to believe on the Son is to have everlasting life. This\nidea recurs with monotonous perseverance, some sixty times.\n\nThat this conception of the Christ is not original with our author has\nalready been said many times. It had been in the world two hundred years\nbefore his day, and had worked its way into the substance of the later\nJewish thought. The personification of the divine reason early occurred\nto the Jews who had been touched with the passion for speculation in the\ncity of Alexandria. Long ago attention was called by Andrews Norton,\namong ourselves, to bold personifications of wisdom and the divine\nreason, in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. \"She is the breath of\nthe power of God, a pure influence proceeding from the glory of the\nAlmighty. She is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted\nmirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.\" Chapters\nseven and eight of the Book of Wisdom contain an apotheosis of wisdom as\nthe creative power. In the eighteenth chapter the imagery grows much\nstronger. \"Thine almighty word leaped down from heaven out of thy royal\nthrone, as a fierce man-of-war into the midst of a land of destruction.\"\nThe twenty-fourth chapter of Ecclesiasticus is devoted to the same\ntheme. The Word is described as a being: the first born of God; the\nactive agent in creation; having its dwelling-place in Israel, its seat\nin the Law of Moses.\n\nPhilo pushes the speculation much further. The Logos is with him a most\ninteresting subject of discourse, tempting him to wonderful feats of\nimagination. There is scarcely a personifying or exalting epithet that\nhe does not bestow on the divine Reason. He describes it as a distinct\nbeing; calls it \"A Rock,\" \"The Summit of the Universe,\" \"Before All\nThings,\" \"First-begotten Son of God,\" \"Eternal Bread from Heaven,\"\n\"Fountain of Wisdom,\" \"Guide to God,\" \"Substitute for God,\" \"Image of\nGod,\" \"Priest,\" \"Creator of the Worlds,\" \"Second God,\" \"Interpreter of\nGod,\" \"Ambassador of God,\" \"Power of God,\" \"King,\" \"Angel,\" \"Man,\"\n\"Mediator,\" \"Light,\" \"The Beginning,\" \"The East,\" \"The Name of God,\"\n\"Intercessor.\" The curious on this subject may consult Luecke's\nIntroduction to the Fourth Gospel, or Gfroerer's Philo, and he will be\nmore than satisfied that the Logos of the fourth Gospel is the same as\nPhilo's, and has the same origin.\n\nChristian scholars who admit this have been anxious to break the force\nof the inference, by allowing the similarity of the conception and then\nsupposing the evangelist to have stated the doctrine that he might stamp\nit as heresy. But he nowhere does stamp it as heresy. He puts it boldly\non the front of his exposition and constructs his whole work in\nconformity with it. Instead of refuting it or denouncing it, he carries\nthe idea out in all its applications, supplementing it with a\ncompleteness that Philo never thought of.\n\nThe Logos becomes a man; \"is made flesh;\" appears as an incarnation; in\norder that the God whom \"no man has seen at any time,\" may be\nmanifested. He has no parentage; is not born, even supernaturally; he\npasses through no childish passages; receives no nurture in a home; has\nno experience of growth or development. The incident of his baptism by\nJohn in the sacred river is carefully excluded, that whole episode, so\nimportant in the earliest narratives, being dismissed in the phrase,\n\"Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending, and remaining on him,\nthe same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.\" John says of him:\n\"This is he that, coming after me, is preferred before me, for he\nexisted before me.\" \"I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a\ndove, and it abode upon him.\" \"I knew him not, but came, baptizing with\nwater, that he might be made manifest to Israel.\" \"I am a voice crying\nin the desert.\" Every word negatives the notion that the Logos received\nconsecration at the hands of a prophet of the old dispensation. He is\npre-existent; he comes from heaven; he is full of grace and truth; of\nhis fulness all have received, grace upon grace.\n\nThe temptation is omitted for the same reason. The divine word cannot,\neven in form, undergo the experience of moral discipline. The bare\nsuggestion of evil taint is foreign to him. He must not come near enough\nto evil to repel it. A dramatic scene in Matthew represents the conflict\nbetween the Messiah and the Prince of the World; a conflict\ninconceivable in the case of a divine being who is, by nature, Lord of\nthe entire spiritual universe,--whose mere appearance dispels the night.\n\nEven the story of the transfiguration, which in some respects would seem\nadmirably illustrative of the logos theory, is omitted, probably for the\nreason that Moses and Elias are the prominent personages in it.\n\nAs a thing of course, the agony in the garden of Gethsemane is\nunmentioned. A suggestion of it occurs in a previous chapter, (XII. 27),\nbut in another connection, and for an opposite purpose, namely, to\nextort a tribute to the glory of the Logos.\n\nThe cross on which the Word is suspended, is transfigured into an\nelevation of honor. On it the Son of God endures no mortal agony; by it\nhe is \"lifted up\" that he may \"draw all men\" unto him. His crucifixion\nis a consummation, a triumph. He mounts, shows himself, and vanishes\naway. The suffering is an appearance of suffering. The shame is turned\nto glory. The tormentors are agents in accomplishing a transformation.\nThe god passes, without a groan or an expression of weakness; clear as\never in his perceptions, seeing his mother and the beloved disciple\nstanding together, he says: \"woman, behold thy son; son, behold thy\nmother.\" Knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the\nscripture might be fulfilled, he said \"I thirst;\" having received the\nvinegar, he remarked \"it is finished,\" bowed his head, and gave up the\nghost. From his dead form issue streams of water and blood, a last sign,\nas the conversion of water into wine was the first, that the\ndispensation of Law, symbolized by John's water baptism, and the\ndispensation of the spirit symbolized by wine and by blood, were both\ncompleted in him.\n\nThe resurrection of the Christ is not described as the resurrection of\na body, but as the apparition of a spiritual form. It is not recognized\nby Mary through any external resemblance to a former self, but through a\nspiritual impression; it stands suddenly before her, forbids her touch,\nis not palpable, and as suddenly disappears; the Logos ascends \"to the\nFather;\" returns, bringing the spirit that he had promised; enters the\nchamber where the disciples are gathered, the door being carefully\nclosed from fear of the Jews, enters without opening the door, is\nvisible for an instant, and is no more seen; re-enters for the purpose\nof giving palpable demonstration of his reality to the doubting Thomas,\nwho, however does not accept it, receives the skeptic's homage and again\ndisappears.\n\nThese apparitions and occultations are frequent in the gospel, the\nChrist's outward form being only a facade, removable at pleasure. The\nnumerous comings and goings, hidings, disclosures, presences, absences,\nare accounted for on this supposition, better than on any other. He goes\nup to the feast at Jerusalem, not openly, but \"as it were in secret,\"\nveiled, disguised. He comes before the crowd many of whom must have been\nfamiliar with his person, but is unrecognized; he discloses himself for\na moment, speaks exciting words that raise a tumult, and then, at the\nheight of the turmoil, becomes invisible. \"They sought to take him; but\nno man laid hands on him, _for his hour was not yet come_.\" On a\nsubsequent occasion his hearers, intensely aroused by his language,\ntook up stones to cast at him; but he \"_hid himself_, and went out of\nthe temple, _going through the midst of them_, and so passed by.\" His\nenemies sought to take him, but \"he escaped out of their hands.\" Having\nspoken, he departs, and hides himself; but again, without apparently\nchanging his locality or absenting himself for any period, he is again\nheard proclaiming his mission.\n\nThere is no history in this book. The incarnate Word can have no\nhistory. His career being theological, the events in it cannot be other\nthan spectral. He is not in the world of cause and effect. His actions\nare phenomenal; the passages of his life do not open into one another,\ndo not lead anywhere; nothing follows anything else, nothing moves;\nthere is no progress towards development. The biography is a succession\nof scenes, a diorama. There are no sequences or consequences. Stones are\ntaken up, but never thrown; hands are uplifted to strike, but no blow is\ndelivered. The movement to arrest is never carried out. The miracles are\nnot deeds of power or mercy, they are signs, thrown out to attract\npopular attention, demonstrations of the divine presence; sometimes\nmerely symbolical foreshadowings or interpretations of speculative\nideas, as in the case of the turning of water into wine at the \"marriage\nfeast;\" the opening of the blind man's eyes, signifying that he was\ncome a light into the world; the resurrection of Lazarus, a scenic\ncommentary on the text, \"I am the resurrection and the life.\" These are\npictures not performances. None of them are mentioned in the earlier\ntraditions, for the probable reason that they never occurred, never were\nrumored to have occurred. They were designed by the artist of the fourth\nGospel, for his private gallery of illustrations. The artist was a Greek\nJew who took Hebrew ideals for his models, but he was sometimes obliged\nto go far to find them. The hint for the conversion of the water into\nwine, may have come from the legends of Israelite sojourn in Egypt,\nwhere Moses, the first deliverer, turned water into blood, the mystical\nsynonym of wine; Elisha may have furnished a study for the elaborate\npicture of the blind man's cure, and Isaiah may have supplied the motive\nfor it, in his famous prophecy that the eyes of the blind shall be\nopened. The studies for the grand cartoon of Lazarus were made possibly\nwhile the artist mused over the stories of Elijah raising the son of the\nwidow, or of Elisha reviving one already dead by mere contact with his\nbones.\n\nIn the veins of the Logos flows no passionate blood. His language is\nvehement, but suggests no corresponding emotion; the words are not\nvascular. Certain superficial peculiarities of these discourses are\nnoticeable at once, their length, their stateliness, their absoluteness,\ntheir loud-voiced, declamatory character, their oracular tone. But\nlittle scrutiny is required to discover that they are monotones; that\ntheir theme is always the same, namely, the claims of the Christ; that\nthey unfold no system of moral or spiritual teaching, proceed in no\nrational order, arrive at no conclusions; that they contain no\narguments, answer no questions, meet no inquiring states of mind; that\nthey resemble orations more than discourses of any other kind, but are\nunlike orations, in having neither beginning middle nor end, in quite\nlacking point and application, in proceeding no whither, in simply\nstanding still and reiterating the same sublime abstractions, without\nregard to logical or rhetorical proprieties.\n\nThis being discovered, the conclusion follows swiftly, that the divine\nLogos could not discourse otherwise. His addresses, like his deeds, are\ndesigned to be revelations of himself; expressions, not of his thoughts,\nbut of his being, not of his character, but of his nature. They are the\nWord made articulate, as his wonders are the Word made mighty, as his\nform is the Word made visible. A human being, seeking to convince,\npersuade, instruct mankind, will from necessity pursue a different\ncourse from the divine Reason presenting itself to \"the world.\" Its very\naudiences are impersonal, consisting not of individuals or of parties,\nbut of abstractions labelled \"Jews,\" who come like shadows, so depart.\n\nSo unhuman is the Christ, so entirely without near relations with\nmankind, that when he has left the world, a substitute may be provided\nfor him, in the shape of the Holy Spirit, another personality proceeding\nfrom him and his Father, and appointed to complete his work; to reprove\nthe world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; to guide the\ndisciples into all truth; to bring to their remembrance all that had\nbeen said to them; to comfort them, and abide with them for ever. The\nidea loses itself in vagueness at times, now being identified with the\nChrist, now appearing as a Spirit of Truth, now being an indwelling\npresence, now an effluence from the Logos. But all the while something\nlike an individual consciousness is preserved; the spirit is as palpable\nas the Logos himself was. Here is already the germ of a trinity maturing\nwithin the bosom of the Hebrew monotheism. The process has been simple;\nthe consecutive steps have been inevitable. But in the process the solid\nground of Judaism has been left; the massive substance of the ancient\nfaith has been melted into cloud.\n\nHow entirely nebulous it has become under the action of speculative mind\nis strikingly apparent on examination of the ethical characteristics of\nthe fourth gospel. The concrete virtues of the ancient race, the honest\nhuman righteousness and charity have disappeared, and in their place are\ncertain spectral \"graces\" which have quality of a technical, but little\nof a human sort. That, according to the Logos doctrine men are saved,\nnot by natural goodness or piety but by faith in the Christ, is written\nall over the book. But this is not the point. It is not enough that\ncharacter has no saving power, it is dispensed with; and instead of it,\nsomething is set up which possesses none of the elements of character.\nThe compact principles of human duty which hold so large a place in the\nOld Testament scriptures, and are so essential in the earliest Messianic\nconception, are not found here, at all. The sermon on the mount is\nomitted. The beatitudes are unmentioned. The parables are not\nremembered. There is no chapter in the book that bears comparison in\npoint of moral vigor or nobleness with the twelfth chapter of Romans, or\nthe thirteenth chapter of Corinthians. Humanity has shrunk to the\ndimensions of an incipient Christendom. The men and women whom the Jesus\nof Matthew addresses, to whom Paul makes appeal, are men and women no\nmore; not even Jews by race, not even a knot of radical Jews; they are\n\"disciples,\" \"believers,\" \"brethren.\" Christians, not fellow men, are to\nlove one another. \"So shall ye be my disciples, if ye have love one for\nanother.\" \"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples.\" Of the\nbroad human love, the recognition of brotherhood on the human ground,\nduty to love those who are _not_ disciples, there is not a word. The\ncommon _faith_, not the common _nature_, is the bond. The promises in\nthe fourteenth chapter, the warnings in the fifteenth, the counsel in\nthe sixteenth, the consecration in the seventeenth are all for the\nbelievers, not for the doers; for the doers only so far as they are\nbelievers, and within the limits of the believing community. The tender\nword \"love\" shrinks to ecclesiastical proportions. \"If a man love me he\nwill keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to\nhim, and make our abode with him;\" but the words are not words of\nexhortation to practical righteousness, they are words of admonition\nagainst unbelief. \"If ye love me, keep my commandments;\" but the\ncommandments are not the wholesome enactments of the Hebrew decalogue,\nbut a bidding to \"walk by the light while ye have the light,\" \"to do the\nwill of Him that sent me,\" which is \"to believe on him whom He hath\nsent.\" \"He that believeth not is condemned already in his not believing\nin the only begotten Son of God.\" There is no sweeter word than \"love;\"\nthere is no more comprehensive law than the law of love; but when love\nis changed from a virtue to a sentiment, and when the duty of practising\nit is limited to members of a doctrinal communion, the practical issue\nis more likely to be sectarian narrowness than human fellowship.\n\nAs the speculation rises the spectral character of the morality becomes\nmore startling. The so-called epistles of John carry the Logos idea\nconsiderably further than the gospel does. The mission of the Logos is\nmore sharply discriminated. He is described as a sin offering. \"He is\nthe propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the\nsins of the whole world.\" \"The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from\nall sin.\" \"He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no\nsin.\" The word \"manifested\" is the key to the doctrine. \"The Son of God\nwas _manifested_ that He might destroy the works of the devil.\" It is\nthe same conception as in the gospel; the Prince of Light confronting\nthe Prince of Darkness, shaming him and _attracting_ away his subjects.\nThe anti-Christ now comes into view; the sin unto death is named; the\nsecond advent is announced, though not according to the millennial\nanticipations of a former day. \"He that denieth that Jesus is the Christ\nis a liar.\" \"Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in\nthe flesh is of God.\" \"Every spirit which confesseth not that Jesus\nChrist is come in the flesh is not of God.\" Belief or unbelief in the\nincarnation of the Logos is made the test of one's spiritual\nrelationship, marking him as a candidate for eternal felicity in the\nrealm of the blessed, or as a victim of endless misery in the realm of\nSatan. Thus the very heart of natural goodness is eaten out. Of virtue\nthere remains small trace. A great deal of very strong language is used\nabout sin, but _sins_ are not particularized. Sin, as an abstraction, a\nprinciple, a power, a force, a deep seated taint in the nature,\nineradicable except by the infusion of a new spirit of life, is\nrepresented as the dreadful thing; and Love, another abstraction, is\nraised to honor as a spiritual grace, equally unconnected with the human\nwill. \"Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and every\none that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not\nknoweth not God, for God is Love.\" The words have a deep and tender\nsound. But the consideration that \"the beloved\" are those only who\nconfess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, that all others are the\nreverse of \"beloved,\" causes that neither the depth nor the sweetness\nremains. The love does not mean compassion, or pity, or good-will, or\nhelpfulness; it has no reference to the poor, the needy, the sick,\nsorrowful, wicked; it has no downward look, is destitute of humility, is\nas far as can well be from the love described by Paul in his perfect\nlyric. It is, we may say, the opposite of that, being a quality that\ndistinguishes the elect from the non-elect, and makes their special\nelection the more sure.\n\nThe literary character of the fourth gospel must be remarked on as a\npeculiar indication of the mental exhaustion that accompanies the last\nstages of an intellectual movement. The literature of the century\npreceding Jesus fairly throbs with personal vitality. It is scarcely\nmore than an expression of individual energies. The earliest writings of\nthe New Testament, the genuine letters of Paul, are animated in every\nline by his own vehement personality; the speculative portions of them\nstir the blood, so real are the issues presented, so vital are the\ninterests at stake. Shapeless, and sometimes incoherent, the thoughts\ntumble out of the writer's overcharged heart. The Christ is an ideal\npersonage, but his mission is tremendously real; we are moved by a\nbattle cry as the apostle's ideas burst upon us.\n\nThe literature of the succeeding period, though more elaborate and\nself-conscious, bearing traces of reflection, and even artifice in\ncomposition, is yet warm with the presence of a real purpose. But the\nfourth gospel is a purely literary work; a composition, the production\nof an artist in language. Its author, perhaps because he was simply an\nartist in language, is unknown. Trace of an historical Jesus in it there\nis none. No breath from the world of living men blows through it; no\nstir of social existence, no movement of human affairs ruffles its calm\nsurface. The people are not real people, the issues are not real issues,\nthe conflict is not a real conflict. We have a book, not a gospel.\n\nThe writer formally announces the subject of his spiritual drama, and\nthen proceeds to develop it, according to approved rules of literary\nart. First comes the prologue, setting forth in a few sententious\npassages the cardinal idea of the piece. This occupies eighteen verses\nof the first chapter, and is followed by the introduction of John the\nBaptist and his testimony. This occupies eighteen verses more. The\nmanifestation of the Logos to the first company of disciples is\ndescribed with due circumstance in the remainder of the chapter. The\nsymbolical opening of the public ministry, at Cana, the first open\n\"manifestation of the glory\" in the miracle of turning water into wine,\nby which is signified the calling to substitute a spiritual for a\nnatural order, occupies the first ten verses of the second chapter. Then\nthe ministry of revelation begins, with signs and demonstrations. The\ncity of Jerusalem is chosen as the scene of it; and the scene never\nchanges for longer than a moment, and then it changes without\nhistorical, or biographical motive. The cleansing of the temple is\nplaced at the beginning, with undisguised purpose to announce his claim,\nand the dialectical contest is opened. Nicodemus, \"a ruler of the Jews,\"\nseeks a nocturnal interview, betrays the ignorance of the kingdom which\ncharacterizes all save the regenerate, even the wisest, and gives\noccasion to the Christ to declare the intrinsic superiority of the Son\nof God, and the conditions of salvation through him; Nicodemus\nfurnishing the starting point for a lofty declamation which soars beyond\nhim into the region of transcendental ideas. The Baptist, instead of\ndoubting, as in Matthew, and sending an embassy to the Christ to\nascertain the reasons of his not disclosing himself, is himself\nquestioned by skeptical disciples, and re-assures them by words that are\nan echo of the Christ's own.\n\nThe interview with the woman of Samaria is introduced for the purpose of\nextracting another confession of the Christ's supremacy from a different\norder of mind. Nicodemus represented Judaism in its pride of authority\nand learning. The woman of Samaria represents the ignorant,\nsuperstitious, yet stubborn idolatry reckoned by the Jews as no better\nthan heathenism; her \"five husbands\" are the five sects into which\nJudaism was divided. She too is pictured to us as sitting by a well and\n_drawing water_. The conversation begins with the Christ's declaration\nof his power to create perennial springs of water in the heart, and\nleads immediately up to the great disclosure of himself. Superstition,\nlike superciliousness, listens and is persuaded. The mention of Galilee\nis necessary to account for the episode in Samaria, but nothing occurs\nthere. The next scene is laid again in Jerusalem. The _water_ of\nBethesda is brought into competition with the quickening spirit of the\nChrist; the cure of the sick man introduces a mystical discourse on the\nspiritual sufficiency of the Son of God.\n\nAnother scene is presented, and once more in Jerusalem. Another series\nof tableaux is arranged. This time the Christ is pictured as breaking\nbread and _walking on water_, whence occasion is taken to descant on the\nbread of life. For the purpose of making a fresh appearance in\nJerusalem, and presenting his claim under a new aspect, Galilee is\ncalled into requisition again, but as usual, the drama is enacted in\nJerusalem, which is the centre of the opposition. This time, the Christ,\nhaving declined to go up in his own character to meet his critics, goes\nup in disguise, incognito, and amazes the congregated multitude by his\nsuperb assumptions of authority, and his overwhelming denunciations of\nall who do not receive him; denunciations so uncompromising, that\ndissensions are created. \"Some would have taken him, but none laid hands\non him.\" As always, the demonstration results in bringing out his\nfriends and enemies, in showing who were and who were not his own, which\nis the aim and end of every manifestation. The Logos presents himself,\nmakes his statement, asserts his prerogative, offers the alternative of\nspiritual life or death, and retires, leaving the result to the\nspiritual laws.\n\nThe story of the woman taken in adultery which immediately follows this\npassage, probably made no part of the original gospel, as it appears out\nof all connection. It is pronounced by some of the best critics to be\nungenuine. The obvious improbability of its incidents, the locality of\nit,--the Mount of Olives,--the Christ's mysterious proceeding of writing\non the ground, and his unaccountable verdict, deprive the tale of all\nbut literary interest. It is interesting in a literary point of view, or\nwould be if it were set in literary relations; for it illustrates the\nChrist's supremacy, his supernatural power of rebuke and insight, his\nauthority to grant absolution on purely theological grounds. The\ndoctrine that none but the guiltless are entitled to pronounce sentence\non guilt would put an end to censorship of every kind, but is quite in\naccordance with the ethical tone of the book. The author however, turns\nthe incident to no account, but proceeds with new scenes in his\nspeculative drama. \"I am the light of the world; he that followeth me\nshall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life;\" the\nChrist enters once more into the old debate, once more the claim is\nchallenged, once more the angry discussion flows on, becoming, at this\njuncture more violent than ever; terrible denunciations leap from the\ndivine lips; the adversaries are called a devil's brood, liars,\nmurderers at heart. At the close of the final outburst, the unseen hands\nraise the visionary stones, but \"Jesus hid himself, went out of the\ntemple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.\"\n\nThe speech however is continued; the main doctrine of it, namely that\nthe Christ is the Light of the World, being illustrated by the miracle\nof giving sight to a man \"blind from his birth,\"--the story being told\nat great length and with exceedingly minute detail, so as to cover every\npoint of circumstance. This seems to be a critical moment in the\ndevelopment of the idea. The vehemence subsides for a time, and the\nlight of the world shines gently as a shepherd's lantern showing\nwandering sheep the way to the true fold. But the softest word stirs up\nanger; the \"Jews\" take up stones, not to throw them, but to exhibit\ntemper, and the act closes tranquilly like those that preceded it.\n\nThe resurrection of Lazarus prepares the way for the closing scenes.\nThat such a story, so artificially constructed, so evidently introduced\nfor effect, told by one writer and not as much as alluded to by the\nothers, told with so much circumstance and with so little regard for\nbiographical probability, told for a dogmatical purpose, and fitted into\nthe narrative at the precise juncture where a turning point was wanted,\nshould be accepted as history by any unfettered mind; that a critic like\nRenan, professing a profound reverence for the character of Jesus,\nshould have admitted it as in some sense true, and should have been\ndriven in explanation of it to a theory utterly fatal to the moral\ncharacter of the \"colossal\" man he celebrates, thus sacrificing the\nmoral greatness of Jesus to a perverse sense of historical truth, proves\nthe obstinacy of traditional prejudice. The narrative is too evidently\na literary device, one would think, to deceive anybody of awakened\ndiscernment. Its manifest artifice is such that it alone would be enough\nto cast suspicion on all the miraculous narrations of the book.\n\n\"From that day forth the Jews took counsel together to put him to\ndeath.\" The crisis has come, and events hasten on towards the\ncatastrophe, which, as has been said, was no catastrophe, but a\nconsummation. Mary, instead of sitting at his feet as a disciple,\nanoints them with spikenard and wipes them with the hair of her head;\nthe holy woman performing the act elsewhere ascribed to a sinner, the\nact itself being a ceremony of consecration, instead of a mark of\npenitence. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem, elsewhere described as\nthe Messiah's own project, is converted into a spontaneous demonstration\nin his honor, rendered by \"much people,\" who had heard that Jesus was\ncoming to Jerusalem. \"Certain Greeks\" present themselves and ask an\nintroduction, as to a royal personage. They are the first fruits of the\nGentile world; their coming is welcomed as a sign of final victory. \"The\nhour is come,\" says Jesus, on receiving them, \"that the Son of Man\nshould be glorified.\" The heavens echo his exclamation; an audible voice,\ninterpreted as the voice of an angel, pronouncing the glorification\ncertain and eternal. The Son of God adds his own interpretation,\nconfirming that of his friends; prophesies the speedy judgment of the\nworld and his own elevation to glory by means of the cross, makes his\nlast statement, and the dialectical war is at an end.\n\nThe rest of the life is given to the disciples. The last supper, its\nagony and distress of mind omitted, is an occasion for impressing on\n\"his own\" the lesson of mutual love. The departure of Judas on his\nerrand is the signal for a burst of rapture. Words of consolation,\nmingled with promises of the \"Spirit of Truth,\" \"The Comforter,\" words\nof blessing too follow, intended to beget in his friends the feeling\nthat, though absent, he will still be present with them. They are bidden\nto remember him as the source of their life; are admonished to keep\nunbroken the spiritual bond that unites them to him in vital sympathy;\nare assured that the mission he came to earth to discharge will be\nfulfilled by the Holy Ghost; and finally are solemnly consecrated by\npriestly supplication as the rescued children of God.\n\nThe story of the arrest is told in a strain equally suited to the idea\non which the book is constructed. In full consciousness of his position,\nJesus steps forth out of the shadow of mystery to meet Judas and his\ntroop, who have come, expecting to find him in his garden retreat. The\nsoldiers, over-awed by the apparition, start backward and fall to the\nground, prostrate before the Son of God. The trial goes on before Annas\nand Caiaphas, priests, and Pilate, Roman viceroy. The powers of Church\nand State pronounce on him; before the powers of Church and State he\nannounces himself and makes his royal claim. In the presence of the High\nPriest, who is scarcely more than a name in this proceeding, introduced\nin order that Judaism might have one more opportunity of rejecting the\nmajesty of heaven, Jesus suffers an indignity at the hands of one of the\nprelate's officers; but Pilate, the pagan, shudders before the awful\npersonage who tells him that he could have no power at all except it\nwere given him from above; that he was but a tool of providence. The\nguilt of the execution is thus transferred from his shoulders to\ndestiny; for the Jews, no less than the governor, are fated. The hour of\nglorification has come, and the Son of Man moves with stately step\ntowards his ascension.\n\nThe process of withdrawal from the visible sphere has already been\ndescribed. It is not effected at once. As a lantern in the hand of one\nwalking in a wood flashes out and again hides itself, becoming dimmer\nand dimmer until finally it quite disappears, so the Son of God is many\ntimes visible and invisible before he vanishes altogether from sight. No\nbodily ascension is necessary to bear away one whose coming and going\nare not conditioned by space or time. His form has always been a\ntranslucent veil, which could at pleasure be removed. His mission ended,\nthere is no more occasion for his self-revelation, and he is unseen. The\nunreality of a representation like this must be too apparent to be\nargued.\n\nFrom this exposition it appears that the New Testament literature is, in\nsome sort, to the end, a continuation of the literature of the Old\nTestament. As the earliest phase of Christianity was Judaism, with a\nbelief in the Messiah's advent superadded, so the first literature of\nChristianity is the literature of Judaism, written on the supposition\nthat the Christ has come. Judaism is Christianity still expectant of a\nChrist to come, or, as with the radical Jews, unexpectant of a personal\nMessiah; Christianity is Judaism with the expectation fulfilled. The\nJudaic element was not limited to the little knot of Jerusalemites who\nhung about the holy city and waited there for the Christ's coming; it\nwas conspicuous in the system of Paul, and so far from being absent from\nthe later form, known by the name of John, determines the cardinal idea\nof that, and shapes its bent. Whatever additions are made, grow out of\nthis cardinal idea, as branches from its stem. The strict monotheism of\nthe Hebrew faith is sacrificed to the Messianic conception. The Christ\nin time becomes a twin Deity, a Holy Ghost being required to fill up the\ngulf between godhead and humanity.\n\nBut for the fury of the discord that arose and deepened between the\nJews who accepted the Christ and the Jews who preferred still to wait\nfor him, the later, as well as the earlier form of Christianity, might\npossibly have been merged in Judaism. The believers in the Messianic\nadvent were radical to the point of fanaticism. They were the restless\nadvocates of change, agitators, revolutionists. Their passionate zeal\ncould not brook indifference or coolness. Nothing short of a fervid\nallegiance satisfied them. The recusants had to bear hard names, as the\ngospels attest. The ill-fortune of the Messiah, the bitter opposition he\nencountered, his untimely death, were charged upon the faithlessness of\nthe nation who would not confess him. These, and not the Roman\nGovernment that actually put him to death, were held answerable for his\ncrucifixion; thus a discord was planted, which all the generations of\nChristendom have failed to eradicate. There has, from that time to this,\nbeen implacable hatred between Christian and Jew.\n\nThe separation, which might have been healed or obliterated, had this\nbeen the sole cause of it, was widened by the subsequent breach between\nthe christians themselves, which drew attention off from the previous\nissue. The position taken by Paul, that the mission of the Christ was\nextended to the Gentiles and comprehended them on precisely the same\nconditions with the Jews, was exceedingly disagreeable and even\nshocking to the conservatives, who held that the Christ was sent to\nIsrael only, and especially to that portion of Israel that clung\ntenaciously to the traditions of the law. The necessary criticism of the\nLaw which Paul's position required, the apparent disrespect shown to\nMoses and the prophets, the disregard of the ancestral claim set up by\nthe \"children of Abraham,\" the substitution of an interior\nprinciple--faith--which any heathen might adopt, for the old fashioned\nlegal requirements to which none but orthodox Jews could conform, was\nhardly less than blasphemous in their regard; and a feud was begun,\nwhich in violence and rancor, excelled the quarrel between the orthodox\nchristians and the Jews. The traces of this controversy, plainly marked\nin the writings of Paul, are visible on the literature of his own and of\nthe succeeding period, and disappear only in the events of greater\nsignificance incident to the fall of Jerusalem, the complete dispersion\nof the Jews, and the blending of parties in the Western Empire.\nFerdinand Christian Baur may have pushed too far in some directions, his\ntheory that the entire gospel literature of the New Testament was\ndetermined as to its form by the exigencies of this controversy, the\ncanonical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the \"Acts of the Apostles\"\nall being written in the interest of reconciliation; but his fundamental\nposition, as in the case of Strauss, has never been carried, or even\nshaken, by assault. The extreme points in controversy are fixed with a\ngood deal of certainty. Paul's own statement in the second chapter of\nGalatians is fairly explicable only on the supposition of a violent\ncollision, the nature of which is there defined, the bearings of which\nare indicated in that and in other undoubted writings of the apostle.\nMany passages therein are unintelligible on any other hypothesis. The\nApocalypse and the Epistle of James, as clearly set forth the opposite\nview, in language and implication of the strongest kind, and in a spirit\nof decided antagonism. The \"Acts of the Apostles\" is, as elsewhere\nhinted, prepared with a view of making it appear that no controversy\nexisted; that Peter carried the gospel to the Gentiles, and that Paul\ninsisted on the validity of circumcision, the mark of initiation into\nthe Jewish church. The narrative is so forced, the incidents so\nartificial, the aim so evident, the limitation of view so marked, that\nthe book betrays its own character. To admit the genuineness of the\n\"Acts\" is to throw into confusion the little history that we certainly\nknow, and to unfix the continuity of events. How far the three first\ngospels correspond in purpose with the \"Acts,\" is a nice question, which\nneed not be answered here, which may be left unanswered without\ndetriment to the soundness of the general theory. Whether or no the\ncontroversy was of such absorbing moment, whether or no it lasted as\nlong as Baur believes, or exerted as wide an influence on literature,\nits effect in drawing the thoughts away from the earlier dispute between\nthe Messianic and the anti-Messianic Jews, and in detaching the\nchristians from their original associations is unimpaired. From the\nbreaking out of that dispute, which occurred within fifteen or twenty\nyears of the crucifixion, at the latest, Christianity followed its own\nlaw of development.\n\nBut, though thus discarded, disowned, finally detested, the very name of\nJew, as early as the fourth gospel, being associated with a stiff-necked\nbigotry impenetrable to conviction, the old religion maintained its sway\nover the child that had taken its portion of goods and gone away to make\na home of its own. The Palestinian and Asiatic literature of the young\nfaith bears the stamp of its Hebrew lineage, as has been shown. The\nChrist sprung from its bosom, was instructed in its schools, was\nglorified through its imagination. The resurrection was its prophecy;\nthe heaven to which he ascended was of its building and coloring; the\nthrone whereon he seated himself was of its construction; the Father at\nwhose right hand he reigned was its own ancient deity. His very name,\nthe name he continues to bear to this day,--Messiah--is the name whereby\nshe loved to describe her own ideal man. In the depth of his\ndegradation, in the heat of his persecution, in the agony of his\ndespair, the Jew could reflect that his relentless oppressor owed to\nhim the very faith he was compelled to curse. The victim was the\nconqueror. The reflection may still have been bitter; whatever sweetness\nit brought was flavored with vengeance, except in the greatest souls who\nloved their religion better than their fame.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nTHE WESTERN CHURCH.\n\n\nOur story is not yet told. As regards the New Testament books, though\nthe genius that produced them was Eastern, the judgment that brought\nthem together in a single collection was Western. No list of the New\nTestament books pretending to carry weight was made until the year 360.\nFor two centuries and a half there was no Christian bible. The canon, as\nit now stands, was fixed by Pope Innocent I., A. D. 405, by a special\ndecree. Why precisely these books were selected from the mass of\nliterature then in existence and use, is--except in two or three cases\nwhere the prevailing sentiment of the actual Church threw out a book\nlike Enoch or kept in a book like the Apocalypse--still open to\nconjecture. In such a dilemma Schwegler's conjecture, that the irenical\nor reconciling books were retained, and the partisan writings dropped,\nis as plausible as any, perhaps more so. The Church of Rome had two\npatron saints--Peter and Paul; it claimed to be founded by both\nApostles, and, on this principle, adopted its canon of scripture. The\nNew Testament, by its arrangement, was, it is claimed, an expression in\nliterature of the Catholic claim.\n\nAs regards the Christ idea, though formed in the East, the West gave it\ncurrency, made it the central feature of a vast religious system,\ncrowned it and placed it on a throne. Had the creative thought of\nJudaism been confined to the East, our concern with it need have gone no\nfurther. But the thought was not confined to the East, even in the\nwidest comprehension of that term. The Jews were everywhere. The\nrepeated disasters which befel their country gave fresh impulse to their\ncreed. Their ideas spread as their state diminished; and their ideas\nwere so vital that they captured and engaged the floating speculations\nof the Gentile world whenever they were encountered. In Alexandria,\nwhere Jews had been for two hundred and fifty or three hundred years,\nand whither they flocked by thousands after each fresh national\ndisaster, the faith, instead of being extinguished by the flood of\nspeculation in that busy centre of the world's thought, revived, drew in\ncopious supplies of blood from the Greek spirit, and entered on a new\ncareer. If it be true, as is declared in Smith's Dictionary of\nGeography, that when the city of Alexandria was founded (B. C. 332) it\nwas laid out in three sections, one of which was assigned to the Jews,\ntheir political and social influence must have corresponded to their\nnumbers. Prof. Huidekoper revives and reaergues the belief, that\ntravelled men of letters from Greece, preeminent among them, Plato, who\nvisited Egypt, borrowed from the Jews the ideas which ennobled and\nbeautified the Greek philosophy. The doctrines of the Stoics, Greek and\nRoman, bear, in Mr. Huidekoper's opinion, evident marks of Jewish\norigin. This is going, we think, beyond warrant of the facts. We may\nclaim much less and still place very high the intellectual sway of this\nremarkable people. It may be confidently asserted, that in portions of\nAsia Minor, Syria, and Northern Egypt, their faith had largely displaced\nthe ancient superstitions.\n\nThe splendid literature of the Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, the\nrich fund of speculation in the Talmud, the intellectual wealth of\nPhilo, the Pauline and Johannean Gnosis, brilliantly attest their\nintellectual vigor. The Rev. Brooke Foss Walcott, in Smith's \"Dictionary\nof the Bible,\" declares, that from the date of the destruction of\nJerusalem, in the year 70, the power of Judaism \"as a present living\nforce, was stayed.\" But such a statement can be accepted only in a much\nqualified sense. The destruction of Jerusalem put an end to the State\nmore completely than the overthrow of any modern city could do; for the\nholy city was the home of the national life in a peculiar sense; it was\nthe seat of the national worship in which the national life centred.\nWith the temple fell the institutions that rested on the temple. When\nthe walls were thrown down and the grand buildings levelled, it was like\nerasing the marks of history, tearing up the roots of tradition and\nsetting the seal of destiny on the nation's future. The territory was\nsmall; the power of the great city was felt in every part of it, and the\nquenching of its light left the land in darkness. But the catastrophe\nwhich terminated the existence of the State, gave a new life to the\nreligious idea and opened a new arena for its conquests. It greatly\nincreased the number of Jews in the city of Rome, the imperial city of\nthe West, the conquering metropolis; raised the congregations already\nexisting there to a position of considerable importance; served to\nunite, by the sympathy of a common sorrow, parties that had been\ndivided; had the effect in some measure to weaken antipathies, harmonize\nopinions and inflame zeal; in a word, transferred to Italy the faith\nthat, in outward form, had been crushed in Palestine. Thenceforth\nJudaism, which had been a blended worship and polity, ceased to be a\npolity, and became more intensely than ever, because more exclusively, a\nworship.\n\nThe history of the settlement of Jews in Rome, is naturally obscure.\nBeing mainly of the mercantile and trading class their presence there\nmight have been expected early. They were restless, enterprising,\nindustrious, eager and skilful in barter; and Rome attracted all such,\nbeing the business centre of the western world. Political affairs at\nhome were never long favorable to peaceful pursuits, and were frequently\nin such confusion that the transactions of ordinary existence were\nprecarious. The numbers that were carried away to Babylon comprised it\nis probable the more eminent class. As many, if not more, found their\nway to other cities, and of these Rome received its share. The earliest\nmention brings them before us as already of consequence from their\nwealth and intelligence. Sixty years before the christian era, Cicero\ncommended Lucius Valerius Flaccus, praetor of the district of Asia Minor,\nbecause he did not encourage an exorbitant expenditure of money on the\nconstruction of the temple, by Jews, the exportation of whose wealth\nfrom Rome was felt as an evil. He states that under the directions of\nFlaccus, one hundred pounds weight of gold ($25,000) had been seized at\nApamea, in Asia Minor; twenty pounds at Laodicea. The Jews were rich.\nTheir demonstrations of grief at the death of Julius Caesar, the\nconqueror of their conqueror, Pompey, and the enlightened friend of the\npeople, argued by the number and loudness of the voices, the presence of\na multitude. One may read in any book of Jewish history that Josephus\nreckoned at eight thousand the Jews who were present, when at the death\nof king Herod, his son Archelaus appeared before Augustus; that the poor\namong them were numerous enough to procure from Augustus a decree\nauthorizing them to receive their share of the bounty of corn on another\nday, when the day of general distribution fell on their Sabbath; that\none emperor expelled them as a dangerous element in the city; that\nanother for the same reason laid special penalties and burdens on them;\nthat the aristocratic party was steadily hostile to them. Tacitus, their\nenemy, speaks of the deportation of four thousand young Israelites to\nSardinia. Josephus makes the astounding, the fabulous statement that in\nthe year 66, the Jews in Rome required two hundred and fifty-six\nthousand lambs for their paschal commemoration.[2] Such a provision\nwould imply a population of two million and a half at least. That the\nJews were of some importance is attested by the comments made on them by\nRoman writers; by Martial, who alludes to their customs in his epigrams;\nby Ovid, who criticises their observance of the Sabbath as having the\ncharacter of a debasing superstition and introduces a shirk who, having\nexhausted all pretexts, makes a pretext of respecting the Sabbath in\norder not to incur the ill will of the Jews; by Persius, who remarks\nsatirically on the Sabbath observances and the rite of circumcision; by\nPlutarch, who minutely describes the Mosaic system of laws. Satire\nbetrays fear as well as dislike. The great writer disdains to caricature\npeople who are inconspicuous. Juvenal was a great writer, and his\nenvenomed raillery against the Jews has become familiar by quotation. It\nwould seem, from his invectives, that Jewish ideas and practices had\ncrept into public approval, and were exerting an influence on the\neducation of Roman youth. He complains bitterly of parents who bring up\ntheir children to think more of the laws of Moses than of the laws of\ntheir country.--\"Some there are, assigned by fortune to Sabbath fearing\nfathers, who adore nothing but the clouds and the genius of the sky; who\nsee no distinction between the swine's flesh as food and the flesh of\nman. Habitually despising the laws of Rome, they study, keep and revere\nthe code of Judaea, a tradition given by Moses in a dark volume. The\nblame is with the father, with whom every seventh day is devoted to\nidleness, and withdrawn from the uses of life.\" Juvenal lived in the\nlatter part of the first and the early part of the second century, about\na generation after the destruction of Jerusalem. Admitting the\ngenuineness of the passage, and the ground of the criticism, neither of\nwhich is disputed, the influence of the Jews was by no means\ncontemptible.\n\n[Footnote 2: Bellum Judaicum, VII. 17.]\n\nMilman conjectures that while the number of Jews in Rome was much\nincreased, their respectability as well as their popularity were much\ndiminished by the immense influx of the most destitute as well as of the\nmost unruly of the race, who were swept into captivity by thousands\nafter the fall of Jerusalem. This may be true. There is reason to\nbelieve that the importation of so great a number of strangers was\nattended by poverty, distress, and squalor, horrible to think of. It\ncould not have been otherwise. That they should infest and infect whole\ndistricts of the city; that they should pitch their vagabond tents on\nvacant plots of ground, and should change fair districts, gardens and\ngroves into disreputable and foul precincts; that they should resort to\nmean trades for support, peddling, trafficking in old clothes, rags,\nmatches, broken glass, or should sink into mendicancy, is simply in the\nnature of things, But it is fair to suppose that the exiles from\nJerusalem would bring with them the memory of their sufferings during\nthe unexampled horrors of that tremendous war; would bring with them\nalso a fiercer sense of loyalty to the faith for which such agonies had\nbeen borne, such sacrifices had been made. That they held their religion\ndear, is certain. Their Sabbaths were observed, their laws revered,\ntheir synagogues frequented, their peculiarities of race cherished and\nperpetuated by tradition from father to son. There is reason to think\nthat they anticipated the Christians in their practice of burying their\ndead in the catacombs, which bore a strong resemblance to the rocky\ncaverns where in the fatherland, their ancestors were laid. The\ncatacombs in the neighborhood of the Transtevere, the district where the\nJews mostly lived, are plainly associated with them. The seven-branched\ncandlestick appears on the wall, and the inscriptions bear witness to\nthe pious constancy of the race.[3] They made proselytes among the\npagans weary of their decrepit and moribund faiths, and thus extended\nthe religious ideas which they so tenaciously held. Among themselves\nthere was close association, partly from tradition and partly from race.\nSome semblance of their ancient institutions was kept up; their general\ncouncil; their tribunal of laws. Circumstances alone prevented them from\nmaintaining their ancestral religion in its grandeur. Seneca, about the\nmiddle of the first century, represents Jewish usages as having pervaded\nall nations; he is speaking of the Sabbath. Paul found thriving\nsynagogues, wherever he went, and wrote to some that he could not visit,\nbefore the destruction of Jerusalem made the final dispersion.\n\n[Footnote 3: See Milman's Jews, II. p. 461.]\n\nThe Messianic hope was strong in these people; all the stronger on\naccount of their political degradation. Born in sorrow, the anticipation\ngrew keen in bitter hours. That Jehovah would abandon them, could not\nbe believed. The thought would be atheism. The hope kept the eastern\nJews in a perpetual state of insurrection. The cry, \"lo here, lo there!\"\nwas incessant. The last great insurrection, that of Bar-Cochab, revealed\nan astonishing frenzy of zeal. It was purely a Messianic uprising.\nJudaism had excited the fears of the Emperor Hadrian,[4] and induced him\nto inflict unusual severities on the people. He had forbidden\ncircumcision, the rite of initiation into their church; he had\nprohibited the observance of the Sabbath and the public reading of the\nlaw, thus drying up the sources of the national faith. He had even\nthreatened to abolish the historical rallying point of the religion by\nplanting a Roman colony on the site of Jerusalem and building a shrine\nto Jupiter on the place where the temple had stood. Measures so violent\nand radical could hardly have been prompted by anything less alarming\nthan the upspringing of that indomitable conviction which worked at the\nheart of the people. The effect of the violence was to stimulate that\nconviction to fury. The night of their despair was once more illumined\nby the star of the east. The banner of the Messiah was raised. Portents\nas of old were seen in the sky; the clouds were watched for the glory\nthat should appear. Bar-Cochab, the \"son of the star,\" seemed to fill\nout the popular idea of the deliverer. Miracles were ascribed to him;\nflames issued from his mouth. The vulgar imagination made haste to\ntransform the audacious fanatic into a child of David. Multitudes\nflocked to his standard. \"The whole Jewish race throughout the world,\"\nsays Milman, \"was in commotion; those who dared not betray their\ninterest in the common cause openly, did so in secret, and perhaps some\nof the wealthy Jews in the remote provinces privately contributed from\ntheir resources.\" \"Native Jews and strangers swelled his ranks. It is\nprobable that many of the fugitives from the insurgents in Egypt and\nCyrene had found their way to Palestine and lay hid in caves and\nfastnesses. No doubt some from the Mesopotamian provinces came to the\naid of their brethren.\" \"Those who had denied or disguised their\ncircumcision, hastened to renew that distinguishing mark of their\nIsraelitish descent, to entitle themselves to a share in the great\nredemption.\" The insurrection gained head. The heights about Jerusalem\nwere seized and occupied; fortifications were erected; caves were dug,\nand subterranean passages cut between the garrisoned positions; arms\nwere collected; nothing but the \"host of angels\" was needed to insure\nvictory. The angels did not appear; the Roman legions did. The carnage,\nduring the three or four years of the war--for so long and possibly\nlonger, the war lasted--was frightful. The Messiah, not proving himself\na conqueror, was held to have proved himself an impostor, the \"son of a\nlie.\" The holy city was once more destroyed, this time completely. A new\ncity, peopled by foreigners, arose on its site. The effect of the\noutbreak, which was felt far and wide, in time and space, was disastrous\nto Jewish influence in the empire. From this time Judaism lost its good\nname, and at the same time its hold on the cultivated mind of Europe.\nFanaticism so wild and destructive was entitled to no respect.\n\n[Footnote 4: See Huidekoper's \"Judaism in Rome,\" p. 325-329.]\n\nThe Christians, of course, took no part in the great rising, and had no\ninterest in it. It was their faith that the Messiah had already come;\nand however confident their expectation of his reappearance to judge the\nnations and redeem his elect, time had so far sobered the hopes of even\nthe rudest among them, that they no longer looked for a man of war, no\nlonger were attracted by banners in the hands of ruffians or trumpet\nblasts blown by human lips. The feeling was gaining ground, if it was\nnot quite confirmed, that instead of waiting for the Christ to come to\nthem, they were to go to him in his heaven. Hence, Jews, though they\nmight be in the essentials of their religious faith, they were wholly\nalienated from those of their race who looked for a cosmical or\npolitical demonstration. That this want of sympathy and failure to\nparticipate, widened the breach between them and the Jews who still\nexpected a temporal deliverer, there can be little question; that in\ntimes of great excitement, the Christian Jews were exposed to scoffing\nand persecution is equally undeniable. Bar-Cochab treated them with\nextreme cruelty. It is even probable that in Rome and the provinces of\nthe empire a settled hatred of the Christians animated Jews of the\naverage stamp, and found expression in the usual forms of popular\nmalignity. It is easy to believe that Jews in Rome, possessing influence\nin high quarters, thrust Christians between themselves and persecution.\nThis, indeed, is extremely probable.[5] But that, in ordinary times, an\nactive animosity prevailed on the part of the Jews of the old school\nagainst Jews of the new school, is not clearly proved. The latter were\northodox, conservative Jews, loyal to the national faith in every\nrespect save one, namely, their persuasion that the Christ was no longer\nto be looked for, having already appeared. To those Jews, who had\nabandoned the belief that he would appear, or who had allowed that\nbelief to sink into the background of their minds, the belief of the\nChristians would occasion no bitterness. It is still a common impression\nthat the persecution recorded in the book of \"The Acts of the Apostles,\"\nto which Stephanos, the Greek convert, fell a victim, was directed by\nJews against Christians. But it has been made to appear more than\nprobable,--admitting the historical truth of the narrative--that the\nassault was made by the Judaizing upon the anti-Judaizing Christians;\nthe Jews who were not Christians at all, taking no part in it. The\nreasoning upon which this conclusion is based, will be found in Zeller's\nbook on the \"Acts,\" an exhaustive treatise which must be studied by\nanybody who would understand that curious composition. The main\npositions may be apprehended by the intelligent reader on carefully\nperusing the story as written, and noting the conspicuous fact, that the\nquarrel is between radicals and conservatives; between the advocates of\na broad policy, comprehending Greeks and Romans on the same terms with\nJews, and the champions of a restricted policy, confining the benefits\nof the Messiah's advent to the true Israelites.\n\n[Footnote 5: See \"Judaism in Rome,\" p. 245.]\n\nThe destruction of Jerusalem was one of the causes that may have\noperated to close this gulf. By breaking up the head-quarters of the\nChristian conservatism, and dispersing the lingerers there among the\ninhabitants of Gentile cities, it weakened their ties, widened their\nexperience, softened their prejudices, and prepared them to accept the\nlarger interpretation of their faith. The writings of the New Testament,\nall of them produced after the destruction of Jerusalem, some of them\nfifty or sixty years after, none of them less than ten or fifteen years,\nbear traces of this enlargement. The Jewish christians living in Greek\nand Roman Cities could hardly avoid the temptations to adopt that view\nof their faith which commended it to the communities whereof they were a\npart, and this was the view presented by Paul and his school, the\nintellectual, or, as some prefer to call it, the \"spiritual\" view.\nAccording to this view, also, the new religion was grafted on the old,\nJudaism was the foundation; the root from which sprung the branches,\nhowever widely spreading. Paul, as has been remarked, addressed himself\ninvariably to Jews, in the first instance, and turned to the Gentiles\nonly when the Jews rejected him. The essential beliefs of the religious\nJew he retained, never exchanging them for the beliefs of Paganism, or\nqualifying them with the speculations of heathen philosophy. He labored\nin the interest of the faith of Israel, broadly interpreted, nor, in\nrespect of his fundamental conceptions, did he ever wander far from the\nreligion of his fathers. The spiritual distance between the school he\nfounded, and the school that in his life time he opposed, was not so\nwide that it might not in course of time, be diminished, until at length\nit disappeared entirely. Parties holding the same cardinal belief, will\nnot forever be separated by incidental barriers, especially when, as was\nthe case with the destruction of Jerusalem, providence moves the chief\nbarriers away.\n\nOther inducements to a good understanding between the two parties of\nChristian Jews were at work. Heresies of all sorts were springing up\nwithin the churches, which could be suppressed only by the moral power\nof a common persuasion in the minds of the chief bodies. Questions were\nraised which neither branch of the christian community could\nsatisfactorily answer; controversies arose, demanding something like an\necclesiastical authority to adjust. Unless the new religion was to split\ninto petty sections and be pulverized to nothingness, the restoration of\nold breaches was an absolute necessity. The danger was of too sudden and\nartificial a compromise between the main divisions, resulting in a\ncompact organization that might arrest the movements of the spirit of\nliberty. The church did eventually obtain supremacy in dogma and rite,\nthrough the imperative demand for unity that was urgently pressed early\nin the second century.\n\nJudaism contained in its bosom two elements, one stationary, the other\nprogressive; one close, the other expansive; one centralizing in Judaea\nand waiting till it should attract the outer world to it, the other\nforth reaching beyond Palestine, and seeking to commend the faith of\nIsrael to those who knew it not. These two elements coexisted from early\ntimes, and caused perpetual ferment by their struggles to overmaster\neach other. The priest stood for the one principle, the narrower, the\nfixed, the instituted; the prophet stood for the other, the\nintellectual, the expansive, the progressive. The priest stayed at home\nto administer the ordinances; the prophet journeyed about, to spread the\nsalvation. The priest was a fixture, the prophet was a missionary.\n\nThe two divisions of the earliest Christian community represented these\ncounter tendencies. The school of Peter, James, and John, the\nhierarchal, conservative school, maintained the attitude of expectation.\nThey waited and prayed, exacted rigid compliance with ordinances; clung\nto their associations with places and seasons; were tenacious of holy\nusages; required punctuality and accuracy of posturing, were strict in\nconformity with legal prescriptions, made a point of circumcision, or\nother rites of initiation into the true church. The school of Paul and\nApollos took up the principle of universality, dispensed with whatever\nhampered their movements and impeded their action, and, taking essential\nideas only, making themselves \"all things to all men, if peradventure,\nthey might win some,\" preached the message freely, to as many as would\nhear. The two principles, however discordant in operation, demanded each\nother. They could not long exist apart; the unity and the universality\nwere mutually complementary. Unity alone, would bring isolation,\nsolitariness, and ultimate death from diminution. Universality alone\nwould lead to dissipation, attenuation, and disappearance. It was\ntherefore not long before the extremes drew together and met.\n\nLecky, the historian of European morals, assigns as a reason why the\nJews in Rome were less vehemently persecuted than the Christians, that\n\"the Jewish religion was essentially conservative and unexpansive. The\nChristians, on the other hand, were ardent missionaries.\" Would it not\nbe more exact to say that the Jews of one school were essentially\nconservative and unexpansive; that the Jews of another school were\nardent missionaries? That the one school should be persecuted, while the\nother was left in peace, was perfectly natural, especially in\ncommunities where their essential identity was not understood. There is\nno necessity for supposing that the two faiths were actually\ndistinguished because one attracted attention and provoked attack, while\nthe other did nothing of the kind. Not history only, but common\nobservation furnishes abundant examples of faiths fundamentally the\nsame, meeting very different fortunes, according to the attitude which\ncircumstances compelled them to assume. The Christians might have\npresented the aggressive front of Judaism, as Paul did, and still not\nhave forfeited their claim to be true children of Israel.\n\nThere is, in fact, no doubt that discerning persons perceived the\nsubstantial identity of the two religions. It is conceded on all sides,\nby Jewish and by Christian writers,--Milman and Salvador, Jost and\nMerivale, corroborating one another,--that Jews were taken for\nChristians and Christians for Jews. They were subjected to the same\ncriticism; they were exposed to the same contumely. Indeed it may be\nquestioned whether the early persecutions that were inflicted on the\nChristians were not really directed against the Jews, whose reputation\nfor restlessness and fanaticism, for stiffness and intolerance, was\nestablished in the minds of all classes of society. The Jews were a mark\nfor persecution before there was a Christian in Rome, before the\nChristian era began. They were persecuted on precisely the same pretexts\nthat were used in the case of the Christians. They had a recognized\nlocality, standing and character. They were many in number and\nconsiderable in influence. The lower orders disliked their austerity;\nthe higher orders dreaded their organization; philosophers despised them\nas superstitious; politicians hated them as intractable; emperors used\nthem when they wished to divert angry comment from their own acts. They\nwere \"fair game\" for imperial pursuit. A raid on the Jews was popular.\nIt is possible, to say the least, that the Christians would have passed\nunmolested but for their association with the Israelites. This is no\nnovel insinuation; Milman hinted at it more than a quarter of a century\nago, in his \"History of Christianity.\" \"When the public peace was\ndisturbed by the dissensions among the Jewish population of Rome, the\nsummary sentence of Claudius visited both Jews and Christians with the\nsame indifferent severity. So the Neronian persecution was an accident\narising out of the fire at Rome; no part of a systematic plan for the\nsuppression of foreign religions. It might have fallen on any other sect\nor body of men who might have been designated as victims to appease the\npopular resentment. Accustomed to the separate worship of the Jews, to\nthe many, Christianity appeared at first only as a modification of that\nbelief.\"[6] The same conjecture is more boldly ventured in the History\nof Latin Christianity. \"What caprice of cruelty directed the attention\nof Nero to the Christians, and made him suppose them victims important\nenough to glut the popular indignation at the burning of Rome, it is\nimpossible to determine. The cause and extent of the Domitian\npersecution is equally obscure. The son of Vespasian was not likely to\nbe merciful to any connected with the fanatic Jews.\" \"At the\ncommencement of the second century, under Trajan, persecution against\nthe Christians is raging in the East. That, however, (I feel increased\nconfidence in the opinion), was a local, or rather Asiatic persecution,\narising out of the vigilant and not groundless apprehension of the\nsullen and brooding preparation for insurrection among the whole Jewish\nrace (with whom Roman terror and hatred still confounded the\nChristians), which broke out in the bloody massacres of Cyrene and\nCyprus, and in the final rebellion, during the reign of Hadrian, under\nBar-Cochab.\"[7] If the Christians made themselves particularly\nobnoxious, they did so by their zeal for beliefs which they shared with\nthe Jews and derived from them; beliefs in the personality of God, the\nimmediateness of Providence, the law of moral retribution, and the\nimmortal destinies of the human soul. Their belief in the ascended and\nreigning Christ gave point to their zeal; but the Jews, too, clung to\ntheir hope of the Christ, and through the vitality of their hope were\nknown.\n\n[Footnote 6: History of Christianity, II; p. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Vol. I.; p. 528.]\n\nThe importance ascribed to Christianity as a special moral force working\nin the constitution of the heathen world, is, by recent admission,\nacknowledged to have been much exaggerated. The chapter on \"The state of\nthe world toward the middle of the first century\" in Renan's \"Apostles,\"\nsums up with singular calmness, clearness and easy strength, the\ninfluences that were slowly transforming the social condition of the\nempire; the nobler ideas, the purer morals, the amenities and humanities\nthat were stealing in to temper the violence, mitigate the ferocity,\nsoften the hardness and uplift the grossness of the western world.\nSamuel Johnson's little essay on \"The Worship of Jesus\" is a subtle\nglance into the same facts, tracing the efficacy of powers that\nco-operated in producing the atmospheric change which was as summer\nsucceeding winter over the civilized earth. Mr. Lecky, with broader\ntouch, but accurately and conscientiously, paints a noble picture on the\nsame subject. But other artists, of a different school, make the same\nrepresentation. Merivale, lecturing in 1864, on the Boyle foundation, in\nthe Chapel Royal, at Whitehall, on the \"Conversion of the Roman Empire,\"\nin the interest of the christian Church, says, \"the influence of Grecian\nconquest was eminently soothing and civilizing; it diffused ideas of\nhumanity and moral culture, while the conquerors themselves imbibed on\ntheir side the highest of moral lessons, lessons of liberality, of\ntoleration, of sympathy with all God's human creation.\" \"Plutarch, in a\nfew rapid touches, enforced by a vivid illustration which we may pass\nover, gives the picture of the new humane polity, the new idea of human\nsociety flashed upon the imagination of mankind by the establishment of\nthe Macedonian Empire. Such, at least, it appeared to the mind of a\nwriter five centuries later; but there are traces preserved, even in\nthe wrecks of ancient civilization, of the moral effect which it\nactually produced on the feelings of society, much more nearly\ncontemporaneous. The conqueror, indeed, perished early, but not\nprematurely. The great empire was split into fragments, but each long\npreserved a sense of the unity from which it was broken off. All were\nleavened more or less with a common idea of civilization, and recognized\nman as one being in various stages of development, to be trained under\none guidance and elevated to one spiritual level. In the two great\nkingdoms of Egypt and Syria, which sprang out of the Macedonian,--in the\ntwo great cities of Alexandria and Antioch, to which the true religion\nowes so deep a debt,--the unity of the human race was practically\nasserted and maintained.\" \"After three centuries of national\namalgamation, the result of a widespread political revolution, after the\ndiffusion of Grecian ideas among every people, from the Ionian to the\nCaspian or the Red Sea, and the reception in return, of manifold ideas,\nand in religious matters of much higher ideas, from the Persian, the\nIndian, the Egyptian and the Jew, the people even of Athens, the very\ncentre and eye of Greece, were prepared to admit the cardinal doctrine\nof Paul's preaching.\"\n\nThe same writer cordially admits the moral grandeur and the moral power\nof the philosophers whose teaching had, for several generations, been\nleavening the thought and ennobling the humanity of the Roman world.\n\"The philosophy of the Stoics, the highest and holiest moral theory at\nthe time of our Lord's coming,--the theory which most worthily contended\nagainst the merely political religion of the day, the theory which\nopposed the purest ideas and the loftiest aims to the grovelling\nprinciples of a narrow and selfish expediency on which the frame of the\nheathen ritual rested--was the direct creation of the sense of unity and\nequality disseminated among the choicer spirits of heathen society by\nthe results of the Macedonian conquest. But for that conquest it could\nhardly have existed at all. It was the philosophy of Plato, sublimed and\nharmonized by the political circumstances of the times. It was what\nPlato would have imagined, had he been a subject of Alexander.\"\n\n\"It taught, nominally at least, the equality of all God's children--of\nGreek and barbarian, of bond and free. It renounced the exclusive ideas\nof the commonwealth on which Plato had made shipwreck of his\nconsistency. It declared that to the wise man all the world is his\ncountry. It was thoroughly comprehensive and cosmopolitan. Instead of a\npolitical union it preached the moral union of all good men,--a city of\ntrue philosophers, a community of religious sentiment, a communion of\nsaints, to be developed partly here below, but more consummately in the\nfuture state of a glorified hereafter. It aspired, at least, to the\ndoctrine of an immortal city of the soul, a providence under which that\nimmortality was to be gained, a reward for the good, possibly, but even\nmore dubiously, a punishment of the wicked.\"\n\nMerivale, it will be understood, writing in the interest of\nChristianity, makes note of the limitations of the Stoic Philosophy,\ncalls it vague, unsatisfactory and aristocratic, the \"peculiarity of a\nselect class of minds;\" and so it was, to a degree; but that it had a\nmighty influence throughout the intellectual world, as much as any\nsystem of belief could have, must be confessed. So far as ideas went, it\ncomprehended the wisest and best there were. As respected the authority\nby which the ideas were recommended and guaranteed, it was the authority\nof the intellectual lights of the world. To say that the truths were\nlimited, is to say what may be said of every intellectual system under\nthe sun, including the beliefs of christian apostles which the christian\nChurch has outgrown. To say that they were not final, is to say what\nwill be affirmed of every intellectual system till the end of time.\nThere the beliefs were, stated, urged, preached with earnestness by men\nof live minds, fully awake to the needs of the society they adorned,\nthinking and writing, not for their own entertainment, but for the\nimprovement of mankind. Their books were not read by the multitude, the\nmultitude could not read: scarcely can they read now. But the men\ninfluenced the directors of opinion, the makers of laws, the builders of\ninstitutions, the wealthy, the instructed, the high in place.\n\nNor must it be forgotten that these ideas of philosophy did not remain\ncold speculations. They bore characteristic fruits in humanity of every\nkind. The brotherhood was not a sentiment, it was a principle of wide\nbeneficence. The charities of this gospel attested the presence of a\nwarm heart in the metropolis of the heathen world. Of this there can no\nlonger be any doubt. Works like that of Denis' \"Histoire des Theories et\ndes Idees Morales dans l'Antiquite,\" reveal a condition of becoming in\nthe Roman Empire that might dispel the fears of the most skeptical in\nregard to the continuous moral progress of the race. The immense popular\ndistributions of corn which from being occasional had become habitual in\nRome, were as a rule prompted by no humane feeling, were not designed to\nmitigate suffering or express compassion. They were in the main, devices\nfor gaining popularity. Caius Gracchus, who, more than a century before\nChrist, carried a law making compulsory the sale of corn to the poor at\na nominal price, was perhaps actuated by a worthier motive; but it is\ndoubtful whether his successors were. Cato of Utica was not. Clodius\nPulcher was not. The emperors were obliged to purchase popularity by\nthese enormous bribes. It is said that Augustus caused the monthly\ndistribution to be made to two hundred thousand people. Half a million\nclaimed the bounty under the Antonines. The addition of a ration of oil\nto the corn; the substitution of bread for the corn; the supplementing\nof this by an allowance of pork; a subsequent supply of the article of\nsalt to the poor on similarly easy terms; the distribution of portions\nof land; the imperial legacies, donations, gratuities, mentioned as\nbestowed on occasion; the public baths provided and thrown open to all\nat a trifling expense, were also means of winning or retaining the good\nwill of a fickle and turbulent populace. They neither expressed a humane\nsentiment nor produced a humane result. They were suggested by ambition,\nno better sometimes than that of the demagogue, and they begot idleness,\nand demoralization. But some part of the beneficence must have sprung\nfrom a more generous motive. The interest manifested by several emperors\nin public education, and the appropriation made for the maintenance of\nthe children of the poor, five thousand of whom are said, by Pliny, to\nhave been supported by the government, under Trajan, who presume never\nheard of Christianity,--cannot fairly be ascribed to political motives.\nThe private charities of the younger Pliny, who devoted a small\npatrimony to the maintenance of poor children in Como, his native place;\nof Coelia Macrina, who founded a charity for one hundred at\nTerracina; Hadrian's, bounties to poor women; Antonine's loans of money\nto the poor at reduced rates of interest; the institutions dedicated to\nthe support of girls by Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius; the private\ninfirmaries for slaves; the military hospitals, certainly owed their\nexistence to a humane feeling. Pliny is responsible for the statement\nthat both in Greece and Rome the poor had mutual insurance societies\nwhich provided for their sick and infirm members. Tacitus expatiates on\nthe generosity of the rich, who, on occasion of a catastrophe near Rome,\nthrew open their houses and taxed their resources to relieve the\nsuffering.[8]\n\n[Footnote 8: For references, see Lecky's \"European Morals,\" II., p.\n79-81.]\n\nSuch acts attest a genuine kindness. The protests of the best citizens\nagainst the bloody gladiatorial shows,--a protest so eager and\npersistent that the trade of the gladiator was seriously injured--must\nhave been in the highest degree unpopular, for the populace found in\nthese shows their favorite amusement. The remonstrances of philanthropic\nmen against the barbarities of the penal code; the call for the\nabolishment of the death penalty; the pity for the woes of neglected\nchildren; the indignation at the crime of infanticide; the earnest\ninterest taken in the problems of prostitution and the most revolting\naspects of pauperism were such as might have proceeded from nineteenth\ncentury people.[9] Stronger words were never spoken by American\nabolitionists than were uttered by pagan lips against the slavery that\nwas pulling down the Roman State.\n\n[Footnote 9: See Denis, II., p. 55-218.]\n\nThat beneficence in the Roman Empire during the latter half of the first\ncentury and the first half of the second was fitful, formal, limited,\nand unimpassioned, as compared with the charities of Christians in their\ncommunities, need not be said; of course it was. The Christians\nsucceeded to the legacies of kindness left by the pagans; they were\ncomparatively few in number, and were bound to one another by peculiar\nties; they were themselves of the great family of the poor; they were\nobliged to help one another in the only way they could, by personal\neffort and sacrifice. Their traditions, too, of beneficence were\noriental. The difference in spirit between Roman and Christian charity\ncannot be fairly described as a difference between heathen charity and\nchristian; it is more just to call it a difference between Eastern\ncharity and Western. The Orientals, including the Jews, made beneficence\nin its various forms, an individual duty. Kindness to the sick, the\nunfortunate, the poor, compassion with the sorrowful, almsgiving to the\ndestitute, hospitality to the stranger, are virtues characteristic of\nall eastern people. The New Testament chiefly echoes the sentiment of\nthe Old on this matter, and the Old Testament chimes in with the voices\nof eastern teachers. In the West, government undertook responsibilities\nwhich in oriental lands, were assumed by individuals; people were to a\nmuch greater degree massed in orders and classes; the distance was wider\nbetween the governors and the governed, and considerations of state more\ngravely affected the actions which elsewhere seemed to concern only the\nprivate conscience and heart. The question of advantage between these\ntwo systems is still an open one. In every generation there have been\nsome, christians too, who preferred the western method to the eastern,\nas being less costly, and more methodical; the debate on the relative\nadvantages and disadvantages of the personal and the impersonal methods\nstill goes on in modern communities; neither system prevails exclusively\nin any christian land; the Latin races still, as a rule, prefer the\nRoman way, France for example, where charity is a matter of public\nrather than of private concern.\n\nThe mischiefs of the oriental method were apparent before Christianity\nappeared, and its zealous adoption of them early awakened misgivings.\nThe indiscriminate almsgiving, the elevation of poverty to the rank of a\nprivilege, the glorification of self-impoverishment, the acceptance of\nfeeling as a divine monitor, and of emotion as a heavenly instinct, the\nsubstitution of the worship of the heart for deference to reason, the\nloose compassion, the practical and professed communism--for some of the\nfathers maintained that all property was based on usurpation, that all\nmen had a common right in the earth, and that none was entitled to hold\nwealth except as a trust for others--soon disclosed disastrous results.\nAgainst the evils that are fairly chargeable upon the wholesale measures\nof the imperial bounty, must be offset the equally grave, and in some\nrespects, not dissimilar evils incident to the unprincipled practice of\nloving kindness on the part of the bishops and their flocks, the\nincrease of the dependent, the encouragement of pauperism, the waste of\nwealth, the worse waste of humanity. National philanthropy in London and\nNew York finds no more serious obstacle to its advance than the\nbenevolence that is inculcated in the name of Christ, and by authority\nof the New Testament. It is the battle of science against sentiment.\n\nThe increased devoutness that showed itself in the empire, about the\nbeginning of the second century, the pious passion that broke out, is\nattributable to natural causes, that have been mentioned by every author\nwho has written on the subject. It is familiar knowledge that the decay\nof institutions, the disintegration of social bonds, the general\ndecline of positive religious faith, a decline partly due, possibly, to\nthe tolerance which placed all faiths side by side, was followed, or we\nmight say accompanied by a longing after divine things that was wild in\nthe fervor of its impulse. The complacent reign of skepticism was\nsucceeded by a volcanic outbreak of superstition. What has been called\n\"a storm of supernaturalism\" burst forth, with the usual accompaniments\nof frenzy, and took possession of all classes. Only general causes of\nthis can be assigned. That it was due to any special influence cannot be\nalleged. That it was due to any \"supernatural\" interposition of heaven,\nis an unnecessary supposition. The cursory reader of the history of the\nempire, as written by intelligent modern scholars, of whatever school,\nsees plainly enough the pass that things had come to and how they came\nto it. Christianity came in on the wave of this movement, felt its\nforce, struck into its channel, was borne aloft on its bosom. It is\ncustomary to speak of all this spiritual ferment as a preparation for\nChristianity; it was such a preparation as left Christianity little of a\npeculiar kind to do. What new element it introduced, it would be hard to\nsay now, however easy it seemed half a century ago. The desert land of\nheathenism has been explored, and the result is a discovery of fertile\nplains instead of barrenness. The distinction between the ante-Christian\nand the post-christian eras is, if not obliterated, yet so far effaced,\nthat the transition from one to the other is natural and facile.\n\nThe longing for spiritual satisfaction that stirred in the heart of the\nempire, found neither its source nor its gratification exclusively in\nthe religion that afterwards became the professed faith of Rome. It\nslaked its thirst at older fountains. Such longings will, at need, open\nfountains of living water for their own supply. Passing through the\nvalley of Baca they create a well, the streams whereof fill the pools.\nThe smitten rock pours out its torrents. The hungry soul creates its\nharvest as it goes along, feeding itself by the way with food that seems\nto fall miraculously from the sky. It makes a religion if there be none\nat hand. A new heaven peopled with angels; a new earth full of\nprovidences come into being at its call. But in this emergency the\nreligion was extant in the world, already venerable, already proved. It\nwas the religion of Israel, with all that was necessary to attract\nattention and command reverence; a holy God, an immediate providence, a\nsolemn history, a glorious prophecy, an inspiring hope, traditions,\ninstitutions, a temple, a priesthood, sacrifices, a code of laws,\nceremonial and moral, poetry, learning, music, mystery, stately forms of\nmen and women, judges, kings, heroes, martyrs, saints, a superb\nliterature, legends of virtue, festivals of joy, visions of\nresurrection and judgment, precepts of righteousness, promises of\npeace, songs of victory and of sorrow, dreams of a heavenly kingdom to\nbe won by obedience to divine law, tender lessons of charity, stern\nlessons of denial, fascinating attractions and yet more fascinating\nfears, gentle persuasions and awful menaces, calculated to lay hold on\nevery mood, to thrill and to satisfy every human emotion. The religion\nof Israel lacked little but outward prestige of power and wealth to make\nit precisely what the time required; and in times of real earnestness\nthe prestige of power and wealth is readily dispensed with. The\nunfashionable faith is the very one to attract worldly people on their\nfirst awakening to spiritual sensibility. The show of worldliness is\nthen, to the worldly, particularly offensive. \"The lust of the flesh,\nthe lust of the eyes, the pride of life,\" delight in abasing themselves\nbefore rags and filth, wishing to reach the opposite extreme. The graces\nof the religious character, humility, meekness, self-accusation,\ncontrition, find in associations with the coarse, the hard, the\nrepulsive, their fittest expression. Hence it was that Judaism,\nheretofore the faith of the despised, became the faith of the despisers.\nIts very dogmatism, its proud exclusiveness and intolerance, were in its\nfavor. Its haughty reserve assisted it; its superb disdain of other\nfaiths, its boast of antiquity, its claim to a monopoly of the future of\nthe race, exerted a weird spell over the dazed and decrepit minds of\nthe superstitious, high and low. Its lofty belief in miracle and sign,\nfairly constrained the skeptical to bow the head.\n\nThe interest felt in Judaism, and its influence on society in its high\nplaces, have already been alluded to, and need not be further insisted\non. The testimony of Juvenal--the testimony of sarcasm and complaint--is\nenough to establish the fact that a curiosity amounting to infatuation\nhad taken possession especially of the women of Rome.\n\nIf it be asked why Judaism, then, was not made the religion of the\nempire, instead of Christianity, which it hated with all the fervor of\nclose relationship, the answer is at hand: _Judaism laid no emphasis on\nits cosmopolitan features, and discouraged belief in the historical\nfulfilment of its own prophecy_. The charge that it was a _national_\nreligion, the religion of a race, it was at no pains to repel; on the\ncontrary, it seems to have exaggerated this claim to distinction,\nstanding on its dignity, despising the arts of propagandism and\ndemanding the submission of other creeds. This attitude alone might have\nrecommended the religion in some quarters, and would not have seriously\nembarrassed it in any, supposing it to have been loftily and worthily\nsustained. A graver cause of its unpopularity was its failure to lay\nstress on its Messianic idea. It would abate nothing of its monotheistic\ngrandeur. Its God was the everlasting, the infinite, the formless, the\ninvisible. The command to make of Him no image whatever, either animal\nor human, to associate Him with neither place nor time, was obeyed to\nthe letter. Among a people extremely sensitive to grace of form and\nbeauty of color, the Jews had no art; they set up no statue; they\npainted no picture; they allowed no emblem that could be worshipped.\nTheir Holy Spirit was an influence; their Messiah was a distant hope;\ntheir kingdom of heaven was a dream. The Christians of both schools--the\nconservative and the liberal--thrust into the foreground the conceptions\nwhich their co-religionists kept in the shadow of anticipation. In their\nbelief, prophecy was fulfilled. The Messiah had come; he had taken on\nhuman shape; he had passed through an earthly career; he had ascended in\nvisible form to the skies; he sat there at the right hand of the Majesty\non high; he was active in his care for his own, suffering and sorrowing\non earth; he sent the Holy Spirit, the comforter and guide to his\nfriends in their affliction; he was the immediate God; he heard and\nanswered prayer; he pardoned sin; he opened the gates of heaven to\nbelievers. They did not scruple to make images of him; to represent him\nin emblems; to eke out their own rude art by adopting the art which the\nheathen had ceased to venerate, and, where they could, re-dedicating\nstatues of Apollo and Jupiter to their Christ. They were eager to have\nlegendary portraits accepted as faithful likenesses of their Lord.\nFables were invented, like that of Veronica's napkin, to give currency\nto certain heads as the Christ's own image of himself miraculously\nimprinted on a cloth. They claimed to have seen him, in moments of\necstasy; they ascribed to his prompting, states of feeling, purposes and\ncourses of action. By every means they created and deepened the\nimpression that the Divinity they worshipped was a real God, and no\nintellectual abstraction.\n\nThis was the very thing the pagan world wanted--a _personal_ Deity,\nProvidence, Saviour. Through their acquiescence in this demand, other\noriental faiths, without a tithe of Israel's grandeur--mythological,\nsuperstitious, sensual even--gained a popularity that Judaism could not\nattain. The strange Egyptian divinities drew many to their shrines.\nThree emperors--Commodus, Caracalla and Heliogabalus--are said to have\nbeen devoted to the mysteries of Isis and Serapis. Juvenal describes\nRoman women as breaking the ice on the frozen Tiber, at the dawn of day,\nand plunging thrice into the stream of purification; as painfully\ndragging themselves on bleeding knees around the field of Tarquin; as\nprojecting pilgrimages to Egypt, expeditions in search of the holy water\nrequired at the shrine of the goddess. The Persian Mithras had his\nthrongs of adoring devotees. The prominence given at this period to the\nstatues of Mithras, the existence of temples to Isis and Serapis,\nattest the power that these divinities exerted over the imagination of\nthe Italian people. These people demanded deities human in shape and\nattributes. So clamorous were they for images, that they would\nconsecrate them at any cost of decency. The emperor Augustus was\ndeified. His statue on the public square, his insignia on a banner, his\nname on a shield excited veneration. The noblest religion without a\nhuman centre was less prized than the ignoblest with one, and the faith\nof Israel was compelled to yield to the degrading fascinations of the\nBona Dea.\n\nThe Christian Jews, with their Messiah, took the popular desire at its\nbest, and satisfied it. The image they presented, though to the mind's\neye only, was so much more gracious than the loveliest that eastern or\nwestern art furnished that its acceptance was assured. Early in the\nfourth century the impression made was too deep to be overlooked by the\ncontrollers of public opinion. The politic Constantine, seeking a\nspiritual ally, and finding none among the faiths of his own land,\ncalled in the Nazarene to aid him in establishing an empire over the\nsouls of his subjects. Christ was king in fact before he was formally\ncrowned.\n\nBut the true history of his reign began with the ceremony of his\ncoronation; the history of Christianity as a distinct religion commences\nwith the so-called \"conversion\" of Constantine. Latin Christianity was\nthe first, some think the consummate, in fact the only, Christianity.\nThe adoption of the religion as the State Church, was for it a new\ncreation. From that moment, began the efforts to complete its dogmatical\nsystem by a succession of councils, the first one, that of Nicaea, being\nheld A. D. 325, about twelve years after the imperial \"conversion;\" that\nof Sardica--ecclesiastically of great importance--in 347, and the\ncouncils of Arles and of Milan in 352.\n\nOnce seated on a throne of power, a crown on his head, a sceptre in his\nhand, clothed with authority, protected by armies, girded with law,\ninstigator of policies, chief of ceremonies, the Christ in heaven\nrapidly completed the structure whereof Constantine had placed the\ncorner-stone. The materials he gathered right and left, wherever they\nwere to be found. Right of supremacy made them his. Judaism gave temple,\nand synagogue, the organization of its priesthood, the distinction\nbetween priest and layman, its worship, music, scripture, litany,\nsentiment and usage of prayer, its ascetic spirit, its doctrines of\nresurrection and judgment, its code of righteousness, its altar forms,\nits history, and its prophecy. Paganism was laid under contribution for\nits military spirit. The \"stations\" of the Passion, were copied from\narmy usage, so were its practical temper, its regard for precedent law\nand policy, its rules of obedience, its distrust of speculation, its\nhorror of schism, its passion for unity, its skill in diplomacy, its\nsolid respect for authority. Quietly, without leave asked, or apology\noffered, the insignia of the old faiths were transferred to the new. The\ntitle of Sovereign Pontifex, or bridgemaker--given originally to the\nchief of the guild of mechanics, passed along from the period of the\nearliest kings through persons of consular dignity, and finally bestowed\non the Roman emperors; a title given at first, in commemoration of the\n_pons Janicularis_, which joined the city to the highest of the\nsurrounding hills--was conferred on the bishops or popes whose office it\nwas to bridge over the gulf between the earth and the celestial\nmountains. The statues of Jupiter, Apollo, Mercury, Orpheus, did duty\nfor the Christ. The Thames river god officiates at the baptism of Jesus\nin the Jordan. Peter holds the keys of Janus. Moses wears the horns of\nJove. Ceres, Cybele, Demeter, assume new names as \"Queen of Heaven,\"\n\"Star of the Sea,\" \"Maria Illuminatrix;\" Dionysius is St. Denis; Cosmos\nis St. Cosmo; Pluto and Proserpine resign their seats in the hall of\nfinal judgment, to the Christ and his mother. The Parcae depute one of\ntheir number, Lachesis, the disposer of lots, to set the stamp of\ndestiny upon the deaths of Christian believers. The _aura placida_ of\nthe poets, the gentle breeze, is personified as Aura and Placida. The\n_perpetua felicitas_ of the devotee becomes a lovely presence in the\nforms of St. Perpetua and St. Felicitas, guardian angels of the pious\nsoul. No relic of Paganism was permitted to remain in its casket. The\ndepositories were all ransacked. The shadowy hands of Egyptian priests\nplaced the urn of holy water at the porch of the basilica, which stood\nready to be converted into a temple. Priests of the most ancient faiths\nof Palestine, Assyria, Babylon, Thebes, Persia, were permitted to erect\nthe altar at the point where the transverse beam of the cross meets the\nmain stem. The hands that constructed the temple in cruciform shape had\nlong become too attenuated to cast the faintest shadow. There Devaki\nwith the infant Crishna, Maya with the babe Boodha, Juno with the child\nMars, represent Mary with Jesus in her arms. Coarse emblems are not\nrejected; the Assyrian dove is a tender symbol of the Holy Ghost. The\nrag bags and toy boxes were explored. A bauble which the Roman\nschool-boy had thrown away was picked up and called an \"agnus dei.\" The\nmusty wardrobes of forgotten hierarchies furnished costumes for the\nofficers of the new prince. Alb and chasuble recalled the fashions of\nNuma's day. The cast off purple habits and shoes of pagan emperors\nbeautified the august persons of christian Popes. The cardinal must be\ncontented with the robes once worn by senators. Zoroaster bound about\nthe monks the girdle he invented as a protection against evil spirits,\nand clothed them in the frocks he had found convenient for his ritual.\nThe Pope thrust out his foot to be kissed, as Caligula, Heliogabalus,\nand Julius Caesar had thrust out theirs. Nothing came amiss to the faith\nthat was to discharge henceforth the offices of spiritual impression.\nStoles, veils, croziers, were all in requisition without too close\nscrutiny of their antecedents. A complete investigation of this subject\nwill probably reveal the fact that Christianity owes its entire\nwardrobe, ecclesiastical, symbolical, dogmatical, to the religions that\npreceded it. The point of difficulty to decide is in what respect\nChristianity differs from the elder faiths. This is the next task its\napologists have to perform.\n\nBut this question does not concern us here. Having indicated the source\nwhence the religion proceeded, and the process by which the successive\nstages in its development were reached, we have done all that was\npurposed. We have tried to make it clear that the Messianic conception\nfrom which it started, and from which its life was derived at each\nperiod of its growth, presided over its destiny in the western world,\nand introduced it to the place of honor it was afterwards called to\nfill.\n\nWhat that place was and how the Church filled it has been told in a\nmultitude of historical books. The history of Christianity is not the\nstory of a developing idea, but a record of the achievements of an idea\ndeveloped, organized, instituted. From the date of the established\nreligion, the writings of the New Testament became the literature of the\nearliest period. In the western world the mind of Christendom expanded\nto deeper and wider thoughts, a new literature was originated of great\nrichness, affluence and beauty, and gave expression to ideas which, in\nthe primitive period could not have been formed. The Greek and Latin\nFathers, the schoolmen, the catholic theologians, Italian, Spanish,\nFrench, the German mystical writers, the Protestant divines and\npreachers, have produced writings unsurpassed in intellectual strength\nand spiritual discernment. The possibilities of speculation have been\nexhausted; the abysses of reflection have been sounded; the heights of\nmeditation have been scaled. The christian idea of salvation has been\napplied to every phase of human experience, and to every problem of\nsocial life. The rudimental conceptions have been distanced; the\noriginal limitations have been overpassed. Rites have been charged with\nnew significance, symbols loaded with new meanings, doctrines\ninterpreted in new senses. Christianity as the modern world knows it, is\na new creation. The name of Messiah is spoken, but with feelings unknown\nto the Jews of the first and second century. The New Testament is\nregarded as a store house of germs, a magazine of texts to be\ninterpreted by the light of the full orbed spirit, and unfolded to meet\nthe needs of an older world. The cord which connected the religion with\nthe mother faith of Israel was broken and the faith entered on an\nindependent existence. To the cradle succeeds the cathedral.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\nJESUS.\n\n\nIt will be remarked that in the foregoing chapters no account is given\nof Jesus, and no account made of him. His name has not been written\nexcept where the common usage of speech made it necessary. The writer\nhas carefully avoided occasion for expressing an opinion in regard to\nhis character, his performance, or his claim; has carefully avoided so\ndoing; the omission has been intentional. The purpose of his essay is to\ngive the history of an idea, not the history of a person, to trace the\ndevelopment of a thought, not the influence of a life, letting it be\ninferred whether the life were necessary, and if necessary, wherein and\nhow far necessary to the shaping of the thought. But this task will not\nbe judged to have been fairly discharged unless he declares the nature\nof the inference he himself draws. The question \"What think ye of the\nChrist?\" meaning \"What think ye of Jesus?\" may be fairly put to him, and\nshould be frankly answered. That there are two distinct questions here\nproposed, need not at the close of this essay be said. Jesus is the name\nof a man; Christ, or rather The Christ, is the name of an idea. The\nhistory of Jesus is the history of an individual; the history of the\nChrist is the history of a doctrine. An essay on the Christ-idea touches\nthe person of Jesus, only as he is associated with the Christ-idea or is\nmade a representative of it. Had he not been associated with that idea,\neither through his own design or in the belief of his countrymen, the\nomission of all mention of his name would provoke no criticism. The\ncommon opinion that he was in some sense the Christ; that but for him\nthe Christ-idea would not have been made conspicuous in the way and at\nthe time it was; that the existence of the Christian Church, the\nconversion of Paul, the composition of the New Testament, the course of\nreligious thought in the eastern and western world was directed by his\nmind; that the social life,--the morals and manners, the heart,\nconscience, feeling, soul--of mankind, in the earlier and later\ncenturies of his era was determined by his character, renders necessary\na word of comment on the validity of his individual claim.\n\nIf either of the four gospels is to be accepted as biography it must be\nthe first, as being the earliest in date, and as containing less than\neither of the others of speculative admixture. The first gospel rests,\naccording to an ancient tradition, on memoranda or notes taken by a\ncompanion of Jesus and afterwards written out, in the popular language\nof the country, for the use of the disciples and others in Judaea and\nGalilee. The disappearance of all save a few fragments of this book, and\nof any writing answering in description to it, the impossibility of\nidentifying it with the present Gospel of Matthew, or of proving that\nthe existing Gospel of Matthew rests upon it;[10] the comparatively late\ndate to which our Greek Matthew must be assigned--thirty years at least,\nprobably fifty or sixty after Jesus' death, and the absolute failure of\nall attempts to trace its records to an eye witness of any sort, (say\nnothing of a competent eye witness, clear of head, tenacious of memory,\nveracious in speech,) all conspire to stamp with imprudence the\nconjecture that the Christ of Matthew and the Jesus of history were one\nand the same. This would be the case were the picture harmoniously\nproportioned, as it is not.\n\n[Footnote 10: The character and influence of the \"Gospel of the Hebrews\"\nand of other books of the same kind is considered in full by Mr. S.\nBaring-Gould in \"The Lost and Hostile Gospels.\" Mr. Baring-Gould argues\nthat while neither of our present Gospels is entitled to be called\ngenuine in the ordinary sense, they contain authentic biographical\nmaterials. It is his opinion that \"at the close of the first century\nalmost every Church had its own Gospel, with which alone it was\nacquainted. But it does not follow that these Gospels were not as\ntrustworthy as the four which we now alone recognize.\" (p. 23.) Mr.\nBaring-Gould's argument is not strong. The first mention of the \"Gospel\nof the Hebrews\" is no earlier than the middle of the second century; the\nremaining fragments of it are too few and too undecisive to be of\nweight; and it was, by all confession, written in the interest of the\nNazarene or Judaizing Christians. Mr. Baring-Gould himself classes it\nwith the Clementine writings and calls them \"The Lost Petrine Gospels.\"]\n\nThe fourth Gospel is usually accepted as the work of a disciple, the\n\"loved disciple,\" the bosom friend, whose apprehension of the spiritual\ncharacter of Jesus was much keener and truer than that of any business\nman, any mere follower, any commonplace, inconspicuous person like\nMatthew. But the fourth Gospel, allowing that it was written by John the\ndisciple, must, to insist on a former remark, have been written in his\nextreme old age, and after a mental and spiritual transformation so\ncomplete as to leave no trace of the Galilean youth whom Jesus took to\nhis heart. The zealot has become a mystic; the Palestinian Jew has\nbecome an Asiatic Greek: the \"son of thunder\" is a philosopher; the\nfisherman is a cultivated writer, acquainted with the subtlest forms of\nspeculation. Is it conceivable that such a man should have retained his\nimpressions of biographical incidents and personal traits, or that\nretaining them he should have allowed them their due prominence in his\nrecord? can his picture be accepted as a portrait?\n\nCertainly, some are impatient to say, and for this very reason; as the\nperfect, the only portrait; the picture of the very man, the biography\nof his soul; we accept it as we accept Plato's portrait of Socrates. But\ndo we accept Plato's portrait of Socrates, as a piece done to the life?\nPlato was a great artist, as all the world knows from his authentic\nworks. But even in his case, we do not know whether he, in depicting\nSocrates, meant to paint the man as he really was, or an ideal head,\nconceived according to the Socratic type. To compare John's portrait of\nJesus with Plato's portrait of Socrates, is besides, a proceeding quite\nillogical; for we must assume, in the first place, that John painted\nthis portrait of Jesus, and in the next place that the portrait must be\na good one because he painted it,--this being the only piece of his ever\non exhibition.\n\nTo say with Renan and others that the idealized likeness must from the\nnature of the case be the correct one, because such a person as Jesus\nwas, is best seen at a distance and by poetic gaze, is again to beg the\nquestion. How do we know that Jesus was such a person? How do we know\nthat the most spiritual apprehension of him, was the truest; that they\njudged him most justly, who judged him from the highest point; that the\nglorifying imaginations alone presented his full stature and\nproportions, that the ordinary minds immediately about him necessarily\nmisconstrued and misrepresented him? In the order of experience,\nhistorical and biographical truth is discovered by stripping off layer\nafter layer of exaggeration and going back to the statements of\ncontemporaries. As a rule, figures are reduced, not enlarged, by\ncriticism. The influence of admiration is recognized as distorting and\nfalsifying, while exalting. The process of legend-making begins\nimmediately, goes on rapidly and with accelerating speed, and must be\nliberally allowed for by the seeker after truth. In scores of instances\nthe historical individual turns out to be very much smaller than he was\npainted by his terrified or loving worshippers. In no single case has it\nbeen established that he was greater, or as great. It is no doubt,\nconceivable that such a case should occur, but it never has occurred, in\nknown instances, and cannot be presumed to have occurred in any\nparticular instance. The presumptions are against the correctness of the\nglorified image. The disposition to exaggerate is so much stronger than\nthe disposition to underrate, that even really great men are placed\nhigher than they belong oftener than lower. The historical method works\nbackwards. Knowledge shrinks the man. Eminent examples that jump to\nrecollection instantly confirm this view.\n\nThe case of Mahomet is in point. Here, the critical procedure was\ntwofold; first to rescue a figure from the depths of infamy and then to\nrecover the same figure from the cloudland of fancy. Under the pressure\nof christian hate the fame of Mahomet sank to the lowest point. He was\nimpostor, liar, cheat, name for all shamefulness. From this muck heap he\nhas been plucked by valiant hands, and placed on the list of heroes. Now\nanother process is beginning, to find precisely what kind of hero he\nwas; and it is safe to say that under this process the dimensions of the\nhero shrink. The arabian estimate of the prophet will not bear close\nexamination. The glamor of pious enthusiasm being dispelled, the traits\nof nationality show themselves; the ecstasy is seen to be complicated\nwith epilepsy; the revelations partake of the general oriental\ncharacter; the truths are the cardinal truths of the semitic religions;\nthe personal qualities are of the same cast that distinguishes the\narabian mind. The detestation and the homage are both unjustifiable.\n\nAnother example in point is Buddha; a name covered by ages of fable, and\nso thickly that his historical existence was long doubted. It was\nquestioned whether he was anything more substantial than a vision. The\nmist of legend has already been so far dispersed that a grand form is\ndiscerned moving up and down in India. Presently it will be measured and\noutlined. It is safe to predict intellectual and moral shrinkage of the\nperson under the operation of this scrutiny. Just now the impression of\nhis greatness is somewhat overpowering. He looks morally gigantic as\ncompared with teachers who are better known. We quote his sayings with\nunbounded admiration; we commend his life as an illustration of whatever\nmost exalts humanity. But if the time ever comes when his lineaments are\nfully revealed to sight, he will be found neither much greater nor much\nbetter than his generation justified.\n\nThe critics of Strauss' \"Life of Jesus\" insisted on the necessity of a\nhistorical foundation for his character. Such a person they declared\nmust have lived; he could not have been invented. Strange position to\ntake, in view of the fact that idealization is one of the commonest\nfeats of mankind; that the human imagination is continually constructing\nheroes out of poltroons, and transmuting lead into gold! Some\nidealization there is, by the general confession of unprejudiced men.\nThe whole cannot be received as literal fact. There is here and there a\nbit of color put on to heighten the effect. Who shall decide how much?\nIf the figure is glorified a little, why not a great deal? If a great\ndeal, why not altogether? The materials for constructing the person\nbeing given, as they are, in the hebrew genius, and the plastic power\nbeing provided as it is, by the hebrew enthusiasm, the result might have\nbeen predicted, a good way in advance of history. The argument against\nStrauss' method proves too much.\n\nThe critics of Baur urged with ceaseless iteration the absurdity of\naccounting for the New Testament, and explaining the developments of the\nfirst century, by means of bodiless ideas, substituting phantoms of\nthought for persons, intellectual issues for the interactions of living\nmen. Life, it was said, presupposes life; life alone generates life. To\ncreate a New Testament out of rabbinical fancies is preposterous. True\nenough. History is not spectral; but neither are ideas spectral. Ideas\nimply living minds, and living minds are persons. But the persons are\nnot of necessity single individuals. They may be multitudes; they may be\ngenerations; they probably are a nation. The individuals that loom up\nconspicuously represent multitudes, an epoch, of which they are mouth\npieces and agents. Do no individuals whatever loom up? None the less\ncreative is the epoch; none the less vital are the ideas. The great\nevents of the world depend not on individuals, but on the cumulative\nforce and providential meeting of wide social tendencies that have been\ngathering head for ages and pointing in certain directions. Mahomet, a\nsensitive, receptive, responsive spirit, gave a name to the arabian\nmovement; he neither originated it, nor finally shaped it. Luther,\nbrave, self-poised, independent soul, was not the author of the\nReformation, though he gave character to it. Others had gone before him,\nand broken a way. The time for reformation had come, thousands were\nwatching for the light which Luther descried, and eagerly aided in its\ndiffusion. Innumerable sparks burst into flame. He was child, not father\nof the movement; so it may have been with Jesus, with Peter, with Paul.\nThey presupposed the ideas of their age, and the agency of living men.\nThe literature of the New Testament, which is all that Baur concerned\nhimself with, stands for what it is, a literature; a product of\nintellectual activity in the age that created it. The popular notion\nthat Scripture was penned by men whose minds were full of thoughts not\ntheir own, but God's, contains a rational truth. All great literature,\nall literature that is not occasional, incidental, ephemeral, is\ninspired in this sense. The writers held the pen while the spirit of\ntheir age, of many ages, of all ages at length, rolled through them. It\nis true of all representative, of all national books. It is true of the\n\"Iliad\" of Homer, of Dante's Divina Commedia, of the Book of Job, the\nKoran, the \"Three Kings,\" the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Dhammapada,\nthe elder Edda. Such books as express the mind of an epoch are\nproductions of an era, not of a man. The productive force is in the\ntime. The man is of moment but incidentally. In discussing such works,\nall consideration of the man may be dispensed with. Strauss and Baur\nwere Hegelians, who regarded the world-movements described in\nliteratures and events, as moments in the experience of God. Nothing to\nthem, therefore, was spectral. In tracing the pedigree of ideas, they\nfelt themselves to be tracing the footprints of Deity.\n\nThe difficulty of constructing one harmonious character from the four\ngospels of the New Testament need not be expatiated on here. It is a\ndifficulty that never has been overcome, and that increases in\ndimensions with our knowledge of the book. It is, of course possible,\nnot easy, but possible, for one standing at either extreme to drag the\nopposite extreme into apparent accord. The believer in the divinity of\nthe Christ planting himself on the doctrine of the Logos, reads his\ntheory into the earlier gospels, loads the language with meaning it was\nnever meant to bear, stretches the homely incidents on the rack of his\nhypothesis, and painfully excavates the figure he has already laid\nthere. The believer in the humanity of the Christ, pursuing the opposite\nmethod, belittles the Johannean conception till it comes within the\ncompass of his argument, dilutes the statements, expurgates and\nattenuates the thought, till nothing remains but sentimentalism. Each\nvindicates one view by sacrificing the other. To one who would preserve\nboth representations, the task of combination is desperate. They are the\ncentres of two opposite systems. One is a human being, a man; the other\nis a demi-god. One is a teacher of moral and religious truth; the other\nis an incarnation of the truth. One indicates the way; the other _is_\nthe way. One invites to life; the other _is_ the life. One talks about\nGod and immortality; the other manifests God, and _is_ immortality. One\npoints to heaven; the other \"is in heaven.\" One is a helpful human\nfriend; the other is a divine Saviour. One claims allegiance on the\nground of his providential calling; the other demands spiritual\nsurrender on the ground of his transcendent nature. One collects a body\nof disciples; the other forms and consecrates a church, and puts it in\ncharge of a Holy Spirit, that shall save it from error and evil. After\nwhat has been said in previous chapters it is unnecessary to enlarge.\nLet whoever will take Furness' portrait of Jesus on one hand, and\nPressense's on the other; let him place them side by side; let him\nsubject them to close scrutiny, comparing each with the original\nsketches; and he will rise from the contemplation satisfied that the two\npictures cannot represent the same person.\n\nScarcely less is the difficulty of constructing a harmonious character\nfrom the first gospel alone. Renan brought to this experiment rare\npowers of mind, and a singular skill in letters. An orientalist, well\nversed in the productions of eastern genius; an accomplished literary\ninvestigator, practised in discerning between the genuine and the\nspurious; without dogmatic prejudice or predilection, neither christian\nnor anti-christian; enthusiastic, yet critical; approaching the subject\nfrom the historical direction; preparing himself laboriously for his\ntask, and devoting to it all the capacity there was in him, Renan yet\nsignally failed to construct a morally harmonious figure. Though\nconceiving Jesus as simply a man, he was obliged to resort to most\nobnoxious extravagances to make the narratives cohere. The \"Vie de\nJesus\" is a standing refutation of the theory that the elements of a\nharmonious biography are to be found in the first gospel. It is the\nChrist of the first gospel who curses unbelieving and inhospitable\ncities; who threatens to deny in heaven those that deny him on earth;\nwho speaks of the unpardonable sin, that \"shall not be forgiven, either\nin this world, or in the world to come;\" who will have none called\n\"Master\" but himself; who condemns to \"everlasting fire, prepared for\nthe devil and his angels\" those who have not assisted \"these my\nbrethren;\" who bids his friends regard as no better than \"a heathen man\nand a publican,\" the offender who will not listen to the Church; who\nlaunches indiscriminate invective against scribes and pharisees; who\nanticipates sitting on a throne, a judge of all nations, with his chosen\nfollowers sitting on twelve thrones of authority in the same kingdom.\nThese statements must be qualified, allegorized, \"spiritualized\" a good\ndeal, before they can be made congenial with the attributes of meekness,\nhumility, gentleness, patience, loving-kindness, human sympathy,\nbenevolence, justice, that adorn the image of a human Jesus. One set of\nqualities or the other, must be disavowed, unless we would incur the\nreproach that has fallen on Renan, of transforming Jesus into a terribly\nmagnificent, and superbly unlovely person. Of this there is no\nnecessity, for there is no necessity for constructing a harmonious\ncharacter, on any hypothesis. We are not called on to construct a\ncharacter at all. We may frankly own that the materials for constructing\na character are not furnished. The first gospels exhibit stages in the\ndevelopment of the Christ idea; they do not give a portraiture of the\nman Jesus.\n\nThe hypothesis of mental and sentimental development in the experience\nof Jesus comes to the aid of the believers. Signs of such an interior\nprogress do certainly appear, or can be made to appear by force of\nenthusiastic exegesis. The teacher who admonishes his disciples not to\ncast their pearls before swine, relates, with approval, the parable of\nthe sower who flung his seed right and left, heedless that some fell on\nthorns that grew up and choked them, and some on stony ground, where\nhaving no root, they withered away. The man who twice frigidly repulsed\nthe Canaanite woman who begged on her knees the boon of his compassion,\ntelling her that he was not sent, save to the lost sheep of the house of\nIsrael, adding, \"it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it\nto the dogs,\" not only extends his effectual sympathy to her in her\nimmediate need, but is found afterward, seeking and saving these very\nlost, going into the wilderness to find them that had gone astray,\nvisiting the country of the pagan Gergesenes, and opening the blind eyes\nof Samaritans. The twelve disciples called and sent to the twelve tribes\nof Israel, one to each tribe, none to spare for the people beyond the\nborders of Palestine, became later seventy apostles commissioned to\ncarry the message of the kingdom to all the tribes of the earth. The\nexorciser of evil spirits begins by casting devils into the herd of\nswine, thus \"spoiling the pig-market\" of a village, herein showing\nhimself a true Jew, and ends by sitting at meat with publicans and\nsinners. By ingenious piecing, light skipping over dates and\ndiscrepancies careless of sequence and consequence, with resolute\npurpose to extract from the documents, by all or any means, a consistent\nhuman character, the development theory may be pushed a little way. But\nit soon comes against an insurmountable difficulty; the stream narrows\njust where it ought to widen, namely, as it approaches the ocean. It is\ntowards the end of his career that the fanaticism discloses itself. The\nterrible outbreaks of anger, the invectives, the diatribes, the superb\nclaims of authority, the horrid descriptions of the day of judgment, the\ndiscouragement and despair, come at the last. The serenity disappears;\nthe sunlight pales; the day closes in mist. The man shrinks, instead of\nexpanding, as he grows.\n\nThis is Renan's account of it; an account more deeply colored with gloom\nthan need be; for that the baffled, tortured Jesus, lost his moral\npoise, and became a deliberate impostor, is not fairly deducible from\nany text; but the account is still essentially close and natural.\nStarting, as Renan does, from the position that the four gospels contain\nmaterials for an intelligible portraiture of Jesus; that those materials\nmay be discovered, sifted, and arranged so as to produce a well\nproportioned figure; and that the principle of this human construction,\nmust, on the supposition, be the principle according to which the\ncharacters of men are and must be constructed, namely, by tracing the\nactions and reactions between them and the circumstances of their time\nand place; starting, we say, from this position, it is difficult to\navoid the inferences that he draws in regard to the disastrous effect\nthat skepticism and opposition had on the mental and moral character of\nthe hero. That \"he made no concession to necessity;\" that \"he boldly\ndeclared war against nature, a complete rupture with kindred;\" that \"he\nexacted from his associates an utter abandonment of terrestrial\nsatisfactions, an absolute consecration to his work,\" is no more than\nthe plain texts imply. Renan does not strain language when he says: \"In\nhis excess of rigor, he went so far as to suppress natural desire. His\nrequirements knew no bounds. Scorning the wholesome limitations of human\nnature, he would have people live for him only, love him alone.\"\n\"Something preternatural and strange mingled with his discourse; as if a\nfire was consuming the roots of his life, and reducing the whole to a\nfrightful desert. The sentiment of disgust towards the world, gloomy and\nbitter, of excessive abnegation which characterizes christian\nperfection, had for its author, not the sensitive joyous moralist of the\nearlier time, but the sombre titan, whom a vast and appalling\npresentiment carried further and further away from humanity. It looks as\nthough, in these moments of conflict with the most legitimate desires of\nthe heart, he forgot the pleasure of living and loving, of seeing and\nfeeling.\" \"It is easy to believe that from the view of Jesus, at this\nepoch of his life, every thought save for the kingdom of God, had wholly\ndisappeared. He was, so to speak, entirely out of nature; family,\nfriends, country had no meaning to him.\" \"A strange passion for\nsuffering and persecution possessed him. His blood seemed the water of a\nsecond baptism he must be bathed in, and he had the air of one driven by\na singular impulse to anticipate this baptism which alone could quench\nhis thirst.\" \"At times his reason seemed disturbed. He experienced\ninward agitations and agonies. The tremendous vision of the kingdom of\nGod, ceaselessly flaming before his eyes, made him giddy. His friends\nthought him, at moments, beside himself. His enemies declared him\npossessed by a devil. His passionate temperament, carried him, in an\ninstant, over the borders of human nature. * * * Urgent, imperious, he\nbrooked no opposition. His native gentleness left him; he was at times\nrude and fantastical. * * * At times his ill humor against all\nopposition pushed him to actions unaccountable and preposterous. It was\nnot that his virtue sank; his struggle against reality in the name of\nthe ideal became insupportable. He hurled himself in angry revolt\nagainst the world. * * * The tone he had assumed could not be sustained\nmore than a few months. It was time for death to put an end to a\nsituation strained to excess, to snatch him from the embarrassments of a\npath that had no issue, and, delivered from a trial too protracted, to\nintroduce him, stainless, into the serenity of his heaven.\"\n\nThis is strong language, even shocking to minds accustomed to worship a\ncharacter of ideal perfection. But it is scarcely bolder than the case\nwarrants. The privilege to pick and choose material has its limits. We\nhave no right to take what pleases us and leave the rest. Statements\nthat rest on equal evidence deserve equal acceptance. If the result be\nnot agreeable, the responsibility is not with the critic.\n\nThe only wonder is that such a person as the literal record justifies,\nshould be accepted as the founder of a religion. How can Renan stand\nbefore his portrait of Jesus, and say, \"the man here delineated merits a\nplace at the summit of human grandeur;\" \"this is the supreme man; a\nsublime personage;\" \"every day he presides over the destiny of the\nworld; to call him divine is no exaggeration; amid the columns that, in\nvulgar uniformity crowd the plain, there are some that point to the\nskies and attest a nobler destiny for man; Jesus is the loftiest of\nthese; in him is concentred all that is highest and best in human\nnature.\" Such a conclusion is not justified by the premises. The homage\nis not warranted by the facts. It will not do to make out a catalogue of\nhuman weaknesses, and then urge those very weaknesses as a chief title\nto glory.\n\nIn the opinion of some it is wiser and kinder to confess at once that\nthe image of Jesus has been irrecoverably lost. In the judgment of\nthese, it is unphilosophical to set up an ideal where none is required.\nNo doubt every effect must have a cause, but to assume the cause, or to\ninsist on the validity of any single or special cause, is unscientific.\nEach event has many causes, a complexity of causes. Renan himself says:\n\"It is undeniable that circumstances told for much, in the success of\nthis wonderful revolution. Each stage in the development of humanity has\nits privileged epoch, in which it reaches perfection without effort, by\na sort of spontaneous instinct. The Jewish state offered the most\nremarkable intellectual and moral conditions that the human race ever\npresented. It was one of those divine moments when a thousand hidden\nforces conspire to produce grand results, when fine spirits are\nsupported by floods of admiration and sympathy.\"\n\nIn truth, was such a person as Jesus is presumed to have been, necessary\nto account for the existence of the religion afterwards called\nChristian? As an impelling force he was not required, for his age was\nthrobbing and bursting with suppressed energy. The pressure of the Roman\nempire was required to keep it down. The Messianic hope had such\nvitality that it condensed into moments the moral results of ages. The\ncommon people were watching to see the heavens open, interpreted peals\nof thunder as angel voices, and saw divine portents in the flight of\nbirds. Mothers dreamed that their boys would be Messiah. The wildest\npreacher drew a crowd. The heart of the nation swelled big with the\nconviction that the hour of destiny was about to strike, that the\nkingdom of heaven was at hand. The crown was ready for any kingly head\nthat might dare to assume it. That in such a state of things\nanticipation should fulfil itself, the dream become real, the vision\nbecome solid, is not surprising. It was not the first time faith has\nbecome fact. The first generation of our era exhibited no phenomena\nthat preceding generations had not prepared for and could not produce.\nNo surprising original force need have been manifested. The spirit was\nthe native spirit of the old vine growing in the old vineyard.\n\nJesus is not necessary to account for the ethics of the New Testament.\nThey were as has been said, the native ethics of Judaism, unqualified.\nThe breadth and the limitation, the ideal beauty and the practical point\nwere alike Jewish. The gorgeous abstractions, gathered up in one\ndiscourse, look like fresh revelations of God; as autumn leaves plucked\nand set in a vase seem more luminous than do myriads of the same leaves\ncovering the mountains and the meadows, their crimson and gold blending\nwith the brown of the soil and the infinite blue of the sky. The ethics\nof the New Testament, like the ethics of the Old, have their root in the\nfaith that Israel was a chosen people; in the expectation of a king in\nwhom the faith should be crowned; in the anticipation of a judgment day,\na national restoration, a celestial sun-burst, a final felicity for the\nfaithful of Israel. The enthusiasm, the extravagance, the fanaticism,\nthe passive trust, the active intolerance, the asceticism, the\narbitrariness, bespeak in the one case as in the other, the presence of\nan intense but narrow spirit. They are not the ethics of this world.\nThey are not temporal. The power of an original, creative soul should be\nattested by some modification of the popular code, rather than by an\nexaggeration of it. We should look for something new, not for a more\nemphatic repetition of the old. But nothing new appears. The\nexaggerations are exaggerated; the precepts suggested by the distant\nprospect of the kingdom are simply reiterated in view of its speedy\nestablishment. Trust in Providence and faith in the Messiah are all in\nall; the virtues of common existence are less and less. The inhumanities\nthat Renan ascribes to an access of fanaticism in Jesus are the\nhumanities of an unreal Utopia.\n\nThe prodigious manifestation of mental and spiritual force that broke\nout in Paul requires no explanation apart from his own genius. He never\nsaw Jesus and apparently was incurious about him. His originality was\nintellectual, and his system bears no trace of a foreign personality. As\nRenan says: \"The Christ who communicates private revelations to him is a\nphantom of his own making;\" \"It is himself he listens to, while fancying\nthat he hears Jesus.\" If ever man was self-motived, self-impelled,\nself-actuated, it was he. He needed no prompter. Hot of brain and heart,\nhe was only too swift to move. Whether, as some think, driven by\nover-mastering ambition to lead a new movement, or, as others contend,\nconstrained by inward urgency to attempt a moral reform on a speculative\nbasis, or, according to yet a third supposition, eager to bear the glad\ntidings of the gospel to the gentile world, his own genius was from\nfirst to last, his guide and inspiration. There is no evidence to prove\nthat his \"conversion\" added anything new to the mass of his moral\nnature, or changed the quality of ruling attributes, or determined the\nbent of his will to unpremeditated issues. He was converted to the\nChrist, not to Jesus; and his conversion to the Christ, was nothing\nabsolutely unprepared for. His zeal for Israel blazed furiously against\nthe disciples who claimed that the Christ had come, and to the end of\nhis stormy days it still continued to burn against disciples of the\nnarrow school who would not believe he had come to any but Jews. His\nzeal for Israel, sent him away by himself to meditate a grander Christ.\nThe Christ, not Jesus, was his watch-cry. A man of ideas, intensely\ninterested in speculative questions, keenly alive to the joy of\ncontroversy and the ecstasy of propagandism, he filled his boiler with\nwater as he rushed along, leaving Peter and the rest to fill theirs at\nthe nazarene spring. So little is Jesus to be credited with Paul's\nachievement, that it is the fashion to call his a distinct movement.\nEnthusiastic admirers of his genius, call him the real founder of\nChristianity. Severe critics of his claim accuse him of corrupting the\nreligion of Jesus in its spirit, and diverting it from its purpose. On\neither supposition, he was not a disciple.\n\nThe worship of Jesus, it has been said, is the redeeming feature of\nChristianity. This evidently is the opinion of John Stuart Mill, who\nwrites, confounding, as is usual, Jesus with the Christ: \"The most\nvaluable part of the effect on the character which Christianity has\nproduced by holding up in a divine person a standard of excellence and a\nmodel for imitation, is available even to the absolute unbeliever, and\ncan nevermore be lost to humanity. For it is Christ rather than God whom\nChristianity has held up to believers as the pattern of perfection for\nhumanity. It is the God incarnate, more than the God of the Jews or of\nnature, who being idealized has taken so great and salutary a hold on\nthe modern mind;\" and more to the same effect, in the essay on Theism.\nBefore Mr. Mill's intellectual eccentricities were as well understood as\nthey are now, this testimony to the humanizing influence of christian,\nas distinct from philosophical theism, would have possessed great\nweight. As it is, it only excites our wonder that so keen and inexorable\na thinker should so completely lose sight of facts. That Christendom has\nworshipped the Christ is true. Is it true that it has worshipped Jesus?\nAgain we might say: Yes;--the Jesus who demanded faith in himself as the\ncondition of salvation; the Jesus who depicted the Son of Man, sitting\non a throne of judgment, summoning before him all nations, and placing\nthe sheep on his right hand, the goats on his left; the Jesus who\nthreatened everlasting fire, and spoke of the devil and his angels; the\nJesus who made the church umpire in matters of faith and works; the\nJesus who bade his friends forsake father and mother, brother and sister\nfor his sake. But did Christendom ever deify the man of the Beatitudes,\nthe relator of the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son,\nthe friend of publicans and sinners? Is Jesus the central figure in the\nNicene, or the Athanasian creed? Is he the God of Calvin, or of Luther,\nof Augustine, even of Borromeo, or Fenelon? Long before the dogmatical\nor ecclesiastical system of Christendom was formed, the image of Jesus\nhad faded away from the minds of christians, if it ever was stamped\nthere. That it was ever stamped there is not quite apparent. In the east\nthere exists no trace of it after the apostolic age, or beyond the\ncircle of his personal friends. In the west the personal influence is\nnot distinctly visible at any distance. From the reported heroism of the\nearly christian centuries no solid conclusion can be drawn, for the\nreason that the reports come from panegyrists like Tertullian, and from\na period when the apostolic age had become a tradition. Writers like\nNeander make the most of a few recorded instances of devotion which\ndistinguished the christians from the pagans about them; and James\nMartineau uses them as evidence of an original spiritual genius in the\nyoung religion. They are indeed beautiful, but they do not refer back\nso far as the historical Jesus for their source of inspiration. That in\na community composed, with scarcely an exception, of poor people, the\nordinary social distinctions should be unobserved; that slaves, among\nwhom in early times many converts were made, should have been\nacknowledged as brethren in Christ; should have appeared in public\nreligious meetings as equal with the rest _before the Lord_; should have\npartaken of the communion on the same terms, taking their place among\nthe believers, and receiving the passionless kiss of brotherhood and of\nsisterhood, is not surprising, especially when it is considered that\nthese slaves belonged to hardy, white races, that they discharged, some\nof them at least, the most honorable offices of labor, and were, except\nfor the mere accident of their condition, physically as well as morally,\npeers of the best.\n\nIt is simply in the course of nature that poor people, grouped in\ncommunities, sharing a common and a painful lot, should help each other\nin times of trouble. The christians did so. At every weekly or monthly\nservice collections were made for the relief of the poor, the sick, the\ninfirm, the aged, widows, prisoners, and toilers in the mines. These\ncontributions were sent to the points of greatest need, converging on\noccasion from many directions at centres of extreme necessity. It is\nrecorded that about the middle of the third century several members of\nthe church in Numidia, men and women, were carried off captive by\nbarbarians. The Numidian churches being poor applied to the Metropolitan\nchurch at Carthage. Cyprian, the bishop there, collected more than four\nthousand dollars in his diocese and sent the money as ransom, with a\nletter full of sentiments of kindness. On another occasion a portion of\nthe sacred vessels of the sanctuary were sold to raise funds for a\nsimilar purpose. In this there was nothing strange. The acts were done\nin strict conformity with a long established usage.\n\nA more remarkable example often cited in evidence that the spirit of\nJesus was alive still in the societies that worshipped him as Lord,\noccurred in the year 254, shortly after the Decian persecution, the most\ngeneral and the most hideous to which the church had been exposed. In\nconsequence of this persecution, which was attended with such slaughter\nthat the unburied bodies poisoned the air, a fearful pestilence broke\nout in the city of Alexandria. Unhappily for the literalness of the\ntruth, it is Lactantius who tells the story. \"The plague,\" he says,\n\"made its appearance with tremendous violence and desolated the city, so\nthat, as Dionysius, the Christian bishop writes, there were not so many\ninhabitants left, of all ages, as heretofore could be numbered between\nforty and seventy. In this emergency the persecuted christians forgot\nall but their Lord's precept, and were unwearied in their attendance on\nthe sick, many perishing in the performance of this duty by taking the\ninfection. 'In this way,' says the bishop with touching simplicity, 'the\nbest of the brethren departed this life, some ministers, and some\ndeacons,' the heathen having abandoned their friends and relations to\nthe care of the very persons whom they had been accustomed to call\nmen-haters. A like noble self-devotion was shown at Carthage, when the\npestilence which had desolated Alexandria made its appearance in that\ncity, and, I quote the words of a contemporary, 'all fled in horror from\nthe contagion, abandoning their relations and friends, as if they\nthought that by avoiding the plague, any one might also exclude death\naltogether. Meanwhile the city was strewed with the bodies or rather\ncarcasses of the dead, which seemed to call for pity from the passers\nby, who might themselves so soon share the same fate; but no one cared\nfor anything but miserable pelf; no one trembled at the consideration of\nwhat might so soon befall him in his turn; no one did for another what\nhe would have wished others to do for him. The bishop hereupon called\ntogether his flock, and, setting before them the example and teaching of\ntheir Lord, called on them to act up to it. He said that if they took\ncare only of their own people, they did but what the commonest feeling\nwould dictate; the servant of Christ must do more, he must love his\nenemies, and pray for his persecutors; for God made his sun to rise and\nhis rain to fall on all alike, and he who would be the child of God must\nimitate his Father.' The people responded to his appeal; they formed\nthemselves into classes, and they whose poverty prevented them from\ndoing more gave their personal attendance while those who had property\naided yet further. No one quitted his post but with his life.\" The\nexample shows the more gloriously against the dark background of horror\nthat stood so near. Yet, to the misery of the persecution by which the\npeople were educated in sympathy, patience, fortitude, and willingness\nto resign life, the benignant heroism must, in part, have been due.\nPrevious to the persecution the spirit of consecration had departed from\nthe church. Christianity had become a social and class affair. Luxury\nhad crept in, and eaten up the heart of conviction. The alliance of\nchurch and state had been especially disastrous to the church, the\nmingling of secular ambition with spiritual aspiration operating fatally\non the finer qualities of faith. Few could have suspected then that the\nspirit of Jesus had ever been with the church. The persecution purged\nthe christian communities with fire. The surface was burned over, and\nonly the roots and seeds were left in the ground. The persecution ended,\ntranquillity being restored, the roots burgeoned, the seeds sprung up,\nall the heroism of the two dreadful years, all the patience and\nfortitude turned to gentleness; and a copious rain of mercy, blessing\nevery body, even the persecutors, was the result of the battle's thunder\nand flame. The suffering that had been endured softened the heart\ntowards all suffering. The persecutors no longer active or hateful,\ntheir passive forbearance seemed, in contrast with their recent fury, a\nspecies of mercy calling for positive gratitude. Not to be hated was\nfelt to be identical with being loved; not to kill was by sudden\nrevulsion of emotion, accepted as a kindly saving of life. To be kind to\nthose who had desisted from hurting was natural. Besides, the\npersecution was incited and pressed by the government in Rome. The\npopulace even there were not responsible for it, and in the distant\nprovinces simply followed the metropolitan precedent. Their infatuation\nhad therefore its pitiable as well as its outrageous aspect. They too\nwere victims of the imperial policy, were perishing of the contagion\nwhich that policy caused, and thus were paying a terrible penalty for\ntheir own unwitting crime. It is unnecessary to suppose that any\npersonal contagion from the character of Jesus, stealing through the\nmurky ages of eastern and western life, communicated its saving grace to\nthe Carthaginian brotherhood. Uninspired human nature is sufficient to\nexplain the beneficent display.\n\nThe conclusion is that no clearly defined traces of the personal Jesus\nremain on the surface or beneath the surface of Christendom. The silence\nof Josephus and other secular historians may be accounted for without\nfalling back on a theory of hostility or contempt. The Christ-idea\ncannot be spared from Christian development, but the personal Jesus, in\nsome measure, can be.\n\nIn some measure, not wholly; the earliest period of the church does\nrequire his presence; the first, the original, the only disciples lived\nunder the influence of a great personalty, and were moulded by it. Their\nattachment to a commanding friend is avowed in the apparently authentic\nparts of the New Testament. If we know anything about those men, it is\nthat they lived, moved and had their being in the memory of a great\nfriend. Their attachment to him took hold of their heart-strings. They\nwere haunted by him. This appears in their frequent meetings for the\nexpression and confirmation of their feelings, in their communion\nsuppers, memorial occasions purely and always, without a trace of\nmysticism or a shade of awe; in their attachment to the places he had\nconsecrated by his presence; in their affection for each other. Ignorant\nthey were, unintellectual, unspiritual in the moral sense of the word,\nrather impervious to ideas, dull, common place, simple-hearted. They\nwere not soaring spirits, audacious, independent like Paul, but exactly\nthe reverse, timid, self-distrustful, pusillanimous by constitution.\nTheir ambition flew low, fluttering round sparkling jewels on the\nMessianic crown. Their master was not such an one as they would have\nchosen, had they been allowed to select. He met none of their\nexpectations, he fulfilled none of their hopes. His rebuke was more\nfrequent and more cordial than his praise. Their stupidity annoyed him,\ntheir selfishness grieved his heart. Instead of justifying their\nconfidence in him as the Christ, he utterly overthrew one form of it by\nallowing himself to be captured, convicted and put to death. Still they\nclung to his memory. True, they clung to him in the conviction that he\nwas the Christ and would have confessed themselves dupes had that\nconviction been dispelled. But why was it not dispelled? Why did they\nbelieve, in the face of the crushing demonstration of the cross? They\nanticipated his return, because he had told them he should reappear in\nclouds. But why did they believe him? Why did they believe, when month\nafter month, year after year, went by and still he did not return? It\nwas because they loved him, and trusted him in spite of evidence. When\nhe did not return, they thought he meant to try their faith; still they\nmet together; still they prayed and waited, imagining themselves to be\nin intimate communion with him in his skies.\n\nThat these men, with their unworthy conceptions of the kingdom, accepted\nhim as their Christ, proves not only that his power over them was very\ngreat, but that he himself lived on the highest level of hebrew thought,\nand illustrated the highest type of hebrew character; that he was a\ngenuine prophet and saint; all the more so, perhaps, for the\ncompleteness of his self-abnegation. Had he raised the standard of\nrevolt, and appealed to arms, his name might have been more conspicuous\nin secular history. He sacrificed himself wholly; kept no shred of\npreeminence for his own behoof.\n\nHence, the person of Jesus, though it may have been immense, is\nindistinct. That a great character was there may be conceded; but\nprecisely wherein the character was great, is left to our conjecture. Of\nthe eminent persons who have swayed the spiritual destinies of mankind,\nnone has more completely disappeared from the critical view. The ideal\nimage which christians have, for nearly two thousand years worshipped\nunder the name of Jesus, has no authentic, distinctly visible\ncounterpart in history.\n\nThis conclusion will be distressing to those who have accorded to Jesus,\nby virtue of a perfect humanity a certain primacy over the human race,\nand even to those who, regarding him as the complete fulfilment and\nperfect type of human character have looked to him as the beacon star\n\"guiding the nations, groping on their way.\" It will be welcome only to\nthe few calm minds who feel the force of ideas, the regenerating power\nof principles. These will rejoice to be relieved of the last thin shadow\nof a supernatural authority in the past, and committed without reserve\nto the support and solace of simple humanity trained in the humble\nobservance of uninterrupted law. Their gratitude for the human influence\nof the person is unqualified by distrust of the claims of the\nindividual.\n\nThe Christ of the fourth Gospel--the incarnate Word--who has been\nasserting absolute spiritual creatorship over his disciples, calling\nhimself the vine whereof they were branches, the door by which they must\nenter, the light by which they must walk, the way their steps must\ntread,--says to them at the critical hour: \"It is expedient for you that\nI go away; if I go not away the Comforter cannot come to you.\" There was\ndanger in his personal continuance. They were to live not in dependence\non him, but in communion with the \"Spirit of Truth,\" which, as\nproceeding from him and from the Father also, was to bring freshly home\nto them what he had said, and to guide them further on to all truth. How\nmany times must those words be repeated, with new applications in the\nnew exigencies of faith! How little disposition do we find in his\nfollowers to heed them! They have gone on with the process of\nidealization, placing him higher and higher; making his personal\nexistence more and more essential; insisting more and more urgently on\nthe necessity of private intercourse with him; letting the Father\nsubside into the background as an \"effluence,\" and the Holy Ghost lapse\nfrom individual identity into impersonal influence, in order that he\nmight be all in all as regenerator and saviour. From age to age the\npersonal Jesus has been made the object of an extreme adoration, till\nnow, faith in the living Christ is the heart of the gospel; philosophy,\nscience, culture, humanity are thrust resolutely aside, and the great\nteachers of the race are extinguished in order that his light may shine.\n\nYet from age to age the warning has been given again, the vain farewell\nhas been spoken, \"it is expedient for you that I go away.\" Perhaps he\nwent, in one form; but he quickly re-appeared in another; and each new\npresentation had its own special kind of evil effect. The Christ of\nPeter, James and John retired to make room for Paul's \"Lord from\nheaven.\" He withdrew in favor of the incarnate Word. The incarnate Word\nloses itself in the Second Person of the Trinity. The imagination of\nman, unable to invent further transformations rested here: Christendom\nfor fifteen hundred years has knelt in awe before the divine image it\nprojected on the clouds of heaven. But the work of disenchantment began\nearly. The sublimated ideal slowly came down from the skies. The\nglorified Christ assumed the lineaments of a human being, from Deity\nbecame archangel, chief of all the celestial hierarchy; from archangel\nslipped down through the ranks of spirits, till he occupied the place of\nSon of God, preexistent, and in attributes, super-human; thence he\ndeclined a step to the position of premiership over the human family,\nthe inaugurator of a new type of man, virgin-born as indicating that he\nwas not the natural product of the generations but was introduced into\nnature by an original law; a further lapse from the supreme dignity\nbrought him to the plane of humanity, but reported him as miraculously\nendowed with gifts from the Holy Spirit, supernaturally graced with\nattributes of power and wisdom, sent on a special mission to found a\nchurch and declare a law, raised from the dead to demonstrate\nimmortality, and lifted to the skies to establish the presence of a\nliving Deity. To this eminent station he bids farewell to stand as the\nperfect man, teacher, reformer, saint, before the enthusiastic gaze of\nhumanitarians, who made amends for the spoliation of his celestial\nwardrobe by the splendor with which they endowed his human soul. Here\nthe idealists place him, still claiming for him no exceptional birth, no\nsuper-human origin, no preexistence, no miraculous powers over nature,\nno superiority of wit or wisdom, no immunity from errors of opinion or\nmistakes of judgment, no fated sanctity of will, no moral impeccability,\nbut ascribing to him an unerringness of spiritual insight, an even\nloftiness of soul, an incorruptibility of conscience, a depth and\ncomprehensiveness of humanity which raise him far above the plane of\nhistory, and tempt them to look longingly backward, instead of directing\na steady gaze forward. But this figure is now seen to be an ideal, like\nthe rest unjustified by chronicle or by fact. The comforter, which is\nthe spirit of truth, requires that he should go away, following his\npredecessors into the realm of majestic and beneficent illusion. The\nChrist in every guise disappears and there remain only the uneven and\nincomplete footprints of a son of man from which we can conclude only\nthat a regal person at one time passed that way.\n\nAll these transformations, it will be observed, came in the order of\nmental development, each timely and beneficent in its place. The\ncrowning and the dis-crowning were alike inevitable and good. The\nglorification and the disappearance were both justified. The final\nchange comes neither too late nor too soon; _not too late_, for still\nthe immense majority of mankind live in sentiment and imagination,\nworship ideal shapes, being quite incapable of appreciating knowledge,\nloving truth, or obeying principles. It will be generations yet, before\nany save the comparatively few think they can live without this great\nfriend at their side. Sentiment is conservative. The poetic feeling\ndetains in picturesque form the ideas which if exposed to the action of\nclear intelligence would be rejected as unsubstantial. The imagination\nlike the ivy loves to beautify ruins, making even robber castles and\ndeserted palaces attractive to tourists. Wordsworth, the poet of Nature\nexpresses the feeling that will at times come over powerful and\ncultivated minds, in moods of sentiment--\n\n    The world is too much with us; late and soon,\n    Getting and spending we lay waste our powers.\n    Little we see in Nature that is ours;\n    We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!\n    This Sea that bares her bosom to the Moon,\n    The winds that will be howling at all hours,\n    And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,\n    For this, for everything, we are out of tune,\n    It moves us not;--Great God! I'd rather be\n    A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;\n    So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,\n    Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn,\n    Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea,\n    Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.\n\nThis is pure sentiment. The sea was as lovely to Wordsworth, is as\nlovely to Tyndall, as it was to the superstitious Greeks. The winds\nawaken similar emotions in the sensitive being. Why then, should\nWordsworth, having all that is or ever was to be had, beauty of form,\nmovement, color, regret the superstition that peopled the sea with\nfanciful beings and animated the winds with supernatural spirits? Why\nnot be content with the facts, and the more content, because the\nfancies are gone that disguised them? Is it not a weakness to love\ndreams better than realities? Mr. Leslie Stephen, in his admirable\n\"History of English Thought in the XVIII century\" explains this mood of\nmind by saying that for the expression of feeling symbols are necessary,\nand superstition supplies all the symbols there are. The bare truth may\nawaken emotions, but it gives them no voice, and emotion unuttered,\nbecomes feeble; in all but sensitive natures it dies. \"In time,\" says\nMr. Stephen, \"the loss may be replaced, the new language may be learnt;\nwe may be content with direct vision, instead of mixing facts with\ndreams; but the process is slow; and till it is completed, the new\nbelief will not have the old power over the mind. The symbols which have\nbeen associated with the hopes and fears, with the loftiest aspirations\nand warmest affections of so many generations may be proved to be only\nsymbols; but they long retain their power over the imagination.\" It is\nnot wise, therefore, to be impatient with sentiment that has so valid an\nexcuse; nor is it magnanimous to stigmatize as weak and childish the\nromantic attachment to the symbol which is all that remains, which, with\nthe unthinking, unadventurous multitude is so large a part of what\nabides of the mind's spiritual endowment. We must be patient with the\nconservatism that is born, not of fear, but of feeling, sympathizing\nwhen we can, with those that grieve when the idols lose their sanctity,\nand rejoicing that sentiment has the power to break the shock caused by\nthe sudden dispelling of illusions. At the same time, it must be\nremembered that intellect is the propelling force in the intellectual\nworld; that the acute, unimaginative, determined minds, impatient of the\nmists, however beautiful, that conceal knowledge, clear a way for the\nhomes and gardens of the new generations; that the love of truth, simple\nand unadorned, is the mother at last of real beauty.\n\nThe disappearance of the resplendent figure of the Christ from the\nheaven of our philosophy has not, therefore, come _too soon_; for\nthinking, clear-sighted, brave and resolute minds there are. Discerning\neyes, bright and gentle, look out and see the fields, sown with new\nseed, whitening for a new harvest. To such as these Jesus is no longer\nnecessary for faith in humanity, for enthusiasm and constancy in\nhumanity's service. Heroic men and saintly women exist in such numbers\nand in such variety that they sit in judgment on the judges, and call\nthe censors to account. The education of mankind in the qualities that\nknit and adorn society has gone so far that these virtues require no\nlonger a super-human representative to give them honor. Knowledge of\nevery kind has so abundantly increased that the aid of revelation to\nthrow light on important subjects is not demanded. Philosophy,\nliterature, science have taken possession of the fields once occupied\nby the surmise of faith, and are carefully mapping out the departments\nof speculation. The problems that remain dark,--and they are the\nmany,--we are content should remain so till light comes from the proper\nsources. The darkest of them, no darker than they have always been, are\nno longer complicated by the difficulties of revelation which added\nenigmas where there were enough before, but lie open to all the light\nthat can be thrown upon them. The confusion introduced into the orderly\nsequence of the world's development by the exceptionally providential\nman subsides, and the cumulative power of history is brought to bear on\nthe necessities of the hour. Relieved from the sacred duty of turning\nbackward for the form of the perfect man, thereby overlooking the\npresent and suspecting the future, we are permitted to estimate fairly\nthe conditions of the present existence, and to prepare for the future\nwith unprejudiced, rational minds. The standard of moral attainment and\nthe quality of moral character set up as authoritative by any single\nrace, however distinguished, by any one era, however brilliant, abuses\nand injures the standards of other races, and casts suspicion on the\nattributes of other generations. The belief that at some time humanity\nhas already come to full flower, discourages the laborers in the human\ngarden. Humanity is still a-making; its perfection is prophecy not\nhistory.\n\nThe lesson of the hour is self-dependence, or rather, if we prefer,\ndependence on the laws of reason. It will be a gain for truth when true\nthoughts shall be welcomed because they are true, not because they are\nspoken by a particular sage; when erroneous thoughts shall be judged by\ntheir demerits, without fear of casting affront on the character of a\nsaint. James Martineau's tender wisdom gains nothing in charm by being\nattributed to his beautiful fiction of a Christ, and Mr. Moody's painful\ncaricatures of Providence have an unfair advantage in being sheltered\nbehind the authority of the Hebrew Messiah. The holy beauty of Mr.\nMartineau's ideal person is more than offset by the awful grandeur of\nthe \"evangelical\" Avenger, equally a creature of imagination. In the\nrealm of fancy the lurid conception outlasts and overwhelms the radiant\none. Safety lies in withdrawal from the realm of fancy, and\ndomestication in the humbler realm of fact. The lesson can be now safely\ntaught. Let men learn it as soon as they will. Dependence on individual\npersonalities has been the rule hitherto; dependence on general ideas\nand organic laws, dependence on discovered fact and intelligent\nconclusion, will be the reliance hereafter. As for the demands of the\nheart, which must have persons to cling to, they will adjust themselves\nto the new science and will satisfy themselves in the future as they\nhave done in the past. Are all the fine personalities dead? Then the\nsooner we give them a chance to revive by removing the prodigious\npersonality whose shadow has blighted them, the better for us. Are there\nnone to love with enthusiastic ardor? Who have made us think so, if not\nthey by whom all amiable and adorable attributes have been claimed\nbefore? Are there no feet it is an honor to sit at, no heads it is a\nprivilege to anoint, no hands it is a dignity to kiss? Whose fault can\nthis be, if not theirs who challenged the adoration of men and women and\npronounced it consecrated because rendered to him for one? Are there no\nleaders worth following, no causes worth espousing? They that think so\nmust be listening to the voice that bade men follow in Galilee, and\nsighing because they cannot take up the cross that was imposed on the\nfaithful in the cities of Judaea.\n\nThe imagination of man has not lost its power or forgotten its function\nsince it performed the prodigious task of enthroning its hope by the\nside of the godhead. It is adequate to new and healthier performance. A\nworld of fresh materials lies before it; new heavens display their\nglories; a new earth offers opportunity and prospect; a new humanity\npresents its varieties of good and evil. New beauties gladden the open\nvision; new glories fascinate the kindling hope. The regions of\npossibility, so far from being exhausted, have but begun to disclose\ntheir treasures. The realities of to-day surpass the ideals of\nyesterday. Art has a new birth. Poetry has a new birth. Philosophy\nteems with new births. These all look forward with confident\nexpectation. Why should religion, which has built up more grandeurs than\nany of them, turn her back to the new day, confess her creative power\nexhausted, and creep back to the images of her own idolatry? The\nChrist-idea, become human, will surpass its old triumphs.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHORITIES.\n\n\nTo meet the wishes of such as may desire to know on what grounds his\nopinions are founded, or to pursue them further, the author gives the\ntitles of a few books that may be profitably consulted. It were easy to\nmake a long list of erudite works; much easier than to make a short list\nof accessible and suggestive volumes. In an essay prepared for the\nintelligent and thoughtful, not for the learned or scholarly class,\nreference to stores of erudition would be out of place. For this reason,\nthe pages are left unencumbered with notes, and the books cited are\npurposely such as come within easy reach of general readers. The better\nknown book is preferred before the less known, the conservative when it\nwill answer the purpose, before the destructive. If the whole case were\npresentable in English, none but English authorities would be mentioned.\nUnfortunately for the general reader, the best literature is in German\nor French, much of which is still untranslated. To indicate these is a\nnecessity for those who are acquainted with those languages, while those\nwho are not, will, it is believed, find enough in English writings\nreasonably to satisfy their need.\n\nThe titles of the books indicate sufficiently the points on which they\nthrow light. The classical references, which are numerous, are most\ncopious in Denis and Huidekoper, though Lecky, Renan, Johnson and others\ncite all the most important.\n\n    Allen, J. H.          Hebrew Men and Times.\n\n    Baur, F. C.           Kanonische Evangelien.\n                          Paulus,--(Translated.)\n                          Drei Ersten Jahrhunderte.\n                          Socrates und Christus.\n                          Die Tuebinger Schule.\n                          Ursprung des Episcopaets.\n\n    Baring-Gould, S.      Lost and Hostile Gospels.\n\n    Buddha.               Romantic History of.\n\n    Cohen.                Les Deicides, (Translated.)\n\n    Coquerel, A.          Histoire du Credo.\n                          Les premieres Transformations\n                          Historiques du Christianisme.\n                          Des Beaux Arts en Italie.\n\n    Cowper, B. Harris.    The Apocryphal Gospels.\n\n    Deutsch, E.           The Talmud.\n\n    Didron.               Iconographie Chretienne, (Translated.)\n\n\n    Ewald, Heinrich.      History of the People Israel.\n                          Prophets of the Old Testament.\n                          Drei Ersten Evangelien.\n                          English Life of Jesus.\n\n    Fontane's.            Le Christianisme Moderne.\n\n    Furness, W. H.        Life of Jesus.\n                          Jesus and his Biographers.\n\n    Gingsburg,            The Essenes\n\n    Geiger.               Judenthum und Seine Geschichte.\n\n    Greg, W. R.           The Creed of Christendom.\n\n    Huet, F.              La Revolution Religieuse.\n\n    Huidekoper, F.        Judaism at Rome.\n\n    Hennell, C. C.        Origin of Christianity.\n                          Christian Theism.\n\n    Hennell, S. S.        Christianity and Infidelity.\n                          Present Religion.\n\n    Holyoake.             Christianity and Secularism.\n\n    Johnson, S.           The Worship of Jesus.\n\n    Jost.                 Geschichte des Judenthum.\n\n    Knight, Richd. Payne. The Symbolical Language of\n                          Ancient Art and Mythology.\n\n    Lecky, W. E. H.       History of European Morals\n\n    Lundy, J. P.          Monumental Christianity.\n\n\n    Martineau, James.     Studies of Christianity.\n\n    Merivale, Charles.    Conversion of the Roman Empire.\n\n    Milman, H. H.         History of the Jews.\n                          History of Christianity.\n                          History of Latin Christianity.\n\n    Maury, Alfred.        Les Legendes Pieuses du Moyen Age.\n                          La Magie et l'astrologie dans l'antiquite\n                             et au Moyen Age.\n\n    Neander, A.           Life of Jesus.\n                          Planting and Training of the Church.\n\n    Newman, F. W.         History of the Hebrew Monarchy.\n                          Phases of Faith.\n    Catholic Union.\n\n    Nicolas, Michel.      Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs.\n                          Essais de Philos. et d'histoire religieuse.\n                          Etudes Critiques sur la Bible.\n                          Les Evangiles Apocryphes.\n                          Le Symbole des Apotres.\n\n    Philippson.           Developpement de l'idee religieuse.\n\n    Parker, Theodore.     Discourse of Religion.\n\n    Pressense, Ed. De.    Jesus Christ, son temps, sa vie, son oeuvre.\n\n    Renan, Ernest.        Life of Jesus.\n                          The Apostles.\n                          St. Paul.\n                          L'Antichrist.\n                          Etudes d'Histoire religieuse.\n\n    Reville, A.           Histoire du Dogme de la Divinite de Jesus Christ.\n                          Essais de Critique religieuse.\n                          Etudes Critiques sur l'evangile selon St.\n                            Matthieu.\n                          Quatre Conferences sur le Christianisme.\n                          La vie de Jesus de M. Renan.\n                          Theodore Parker.\n                          L'enseignement de Jesus Christ comparee a celui\n                            de ses Disciples.\n\n    Reuss, Ed.            Histoire du Canon dans l'eglise Chretienne.\n                          The Apostolic Age. (Translated.)\n\n    Rodrigues.            Origin du Sermon de la Montagne.\n\n    Schenkel.             Character of Jesus (tr. by Furness).\n\n    Schwegler, A.         Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter.\n\n    Strauss.              Leben Jesu. (Translated.)\n                          Leben Jesu fur das Deutsche Volk.\n                          Christliche Glaubenslehre.\n                          The Old Faith and the New.\n                          Supernatural Religion.\n\n    Schlesinger, M.       The Historical Jesus of Nazareth.\n\n    Salvador.             Jesus Christ et sa Doctrine.\n\n    Tayler, J. J.         The Fourth Gospel.\n\n    Thierry, A.           Tableau de l'empire Romain.\n\n    Vacherot Etienne.     La Religion.\n\n    Weber, C. F.          Neue Untersuchung ueber das Alter\n                          und Ansehen des Ev. der Hebraeer.\n\n    Wise, Isaac M.        The Origin of Christianity.\n\n    Zeller, Ed.           Acts of the Apostles. (Translated.)\n                          Strauss und Renan. (Translated.)\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nWASHINGTON IRVING'S WORKS.\n\n\"The delight of childhood, the chivalric companion of refined womanhood,\nthe solace of life at every period, his writings are an imperishable\nlegacy of grace and beauty to his countrymen.\"\n\n    Bracebridge Hall.\n    Wolfert's Roost.\n    Sketch-Book.\n    Traveler.\n    Knickerbocker.\n    Crayon Miscellany.\n    Goldsmith.\n    Alhambra.\n    Columbus, 3 vols.\n    Astoria.\n    Bonneville.\n    Mahomet, 2 vols.\n    Granada.\n    Salmagundi.\n    Spanish Papers.\n    Washington, 5 vols.\n    Life and Letters, 3 vols.\n\nThe following editions of Irving are now issued.\n\n    I.--The Knickerbocker Edition. Large 12mo, on superfine\n          laid paper, with Illustrations, elegantly printed\n          and bound in extra cloth, gilt top. Per volume         $2 50\n          Complete in 27 vols                                    67 50\n          Half calf                                             108 00\n\n    II.--The Riverside Edition. 16mo, on fine white paper;\n           green crape cloth, gilt top, beveled edges. Per volume 1 75\n           26 volumes                                            45 50\n           Half calf                                             84 50\n           The same \"Belles Lettres Works,\" 8 vols., attractively\n           bound in cloth extra, $14.00; half calf or morocco    26 00\n\n    III.--The People's Edition. From the same stereotype\n            plates as above, but printed on cheaper paper, neatly\n            bound in cloth. Per volume                            1 25\n            26 volumes                                           32 50\n            Half calf                                            71 50\n\n     \"The Life and Letters,\" condensed into three volumes, is\n     included in these three editions.\n\n    IV.--Sunnyside Edition.--Per volume                           2 25\n            28 vols., 12mo cloth                                 63 00\n            Half calf                                           112 00\n\n    The Life of George Washington. The new Mount Vernon\n          Edition, giving the complete Work in two handsome\n          octavo volumes, fully illustrated with steel plates.\n          Cloth extra, in box, $7.00; half calf                  12 00\n\n          The one volume Popular Edition condensed, with\n          plates; for school and popular use.  Large, 12mo,\n          cloth extra, $2.50; half calf, extra                    4 50\n\n\n\n\nRECENT PUBLICATIONS\n\nOF\n\nG. P. PUTNAM'S SONS.\n\n\nDODGE. THE PLAINS OF THE GREAT WEST, AND THEIR INHABITANTS.\n\nA vivid and picturesque description of the Western plains of the\nAmerican Continent, including accounts of the game, a careful\ntopographical record, notes of emigration, &c., &c., and an exhaustive\naccount of the life and habits of the Indians (both the \"reserved\" and\nthe \"unreserved\"), their customs in fighting, hunting, marriage, death,\nclothing, religious beliefs and rites, &c., &c., with some suggestions\nfor the treatment of the Indian question. By RICHARD IRVING DODGE,\nColonel in the U.S. Army. 1 large octavo volume very fully illustrated,\n$4.00\n\nColonel Dodge has, during many years, held positions of responsibility\non the Western frontier, and has enjoyed exceptional opportunities for\nobtaining an intimate knowledge of the life and habits of the Indians,\nand of the features of the great plains in which they live, and the\nrecord of his experiences and observations will be found not only most\nfascinating reading, but a trustworthy and authoritative guide on the\nsubjects of which it treats.\n\nVAN LAUN. THE HISTORY OF FRENCH LITERATURE.\n\nBy HENRI VAN LAUN. Translator of Taine's \"History of English\nLiterature,\" the Works of Moliere, etc., etc.\n\nVol. I.--FROM ITS ORIGIN TO THE RENAISSANCE. 8vo, cloth extra, $3.00.\n\nWe have to deal with a people essentially spirited and intellectual,\nwhose spirit and intellect have been invariably the wonder and\nadmiration, if not the model and mould, of contemporary thought, and\nwhose literary triumphs remain to this day among the most notable\nlandmarks of modern literature. * * * _Extract from Author's Preface._\n\n\nSTEPHENS. ENGLISH THOUGHT IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.\n\nBy LESLIE STEPHENS, author of \"Hours in a Library,\" etc., etc. 2\nvolumes, large octavo, cloth extra, $8.00.\n\n     * * * Thus the progress of the intellect necessarily involves a\n     conflict. It implies destruction, as correlative to growth. The\n     history of thought is, in great part, a history of the gradual\n     emancipation of the mind from the errors spontaneously\n     generated by its first childlike attempts at speculative\n     doctrines which once appeared to be simply expressions of\n     immediate observation, have contained a hypothetical element,\n     gradually dissolved by contact with facts.--_Extract from\n     Author's Preface._\n\n\n     THE SELECT BRITISH ESSAYISTS. A series planned to consist of\n     half a dozen volumes, comprising the Representative Papers of\n     _The Spectator_, _Tatler_, _Guardian_, _Rambler_, _Lounger_,\n     _Mirror_, _Looker-On_, etc., etc. Edited, with Introduction and\n     Biographical Sketches of the Authors, by JOHN HABBERTON.\n\n     Vol. I.--THE SPECTATOR. By ADDISON and STEELE. Square 16mo,\n     beautifully printed, and tastefully bound in cloth extra, $1.25\n\n     This series has been planned to preserve, and to present in a\n     form at once attractive and economical, the permanently\n     valuable portions of those standard productions of the\n     Essayists, which, as well for the perfection of their English\n     style, as for the sterling worth of their matter are deservedly\n     perennial.\n\n\n     Vol. 2. SIR ROGER DE COVERLY PAPERS. From _The Spectator_ One\n     volume, 16mo, $1.00.\n\n     \"Mr. Habberton has given us a truly readable and delightful\n     selection from a series of volumes that ought possibly never to\n     go out of fashion, but which by the reason of their length and\n     slightly antiquated form there is danger of our\n     overlooking.\"--_Liberal Christian._\n\n\n\n\n     A SELECTION FROM STANDARD PUBLICATIONS\n\n\n    BY JOHN BASCOM,\n    _President of the University of Wisconsin_.\n\n  I. The Principles of Psychology.\n\n     12mo, Cloth, $1.75.\n\n     \"To the few who think and investigate, this book will be a rare\n     delight.\"--_San Francisco Bulletin._\n\n II. Science, Philosophy, and Religion.\n\n     12mo, Cloth, $1.75.\n\n     \"Vigorous, thoughtful, sometimes brilliant, and uncommonly\n     refreshing reading.\"--_Boston Commonwealth._\n\nIII. The Philosophy of Religion.\n\n     Large 12mo, Cloth, $2.00.\n\n IV. The Philosophy of English Literature.\n\n     12mo, Cloth, 1.75.\n\n     \"A knowledge of forces as well as of facts is essential to our\n     comprehension of any phenomenon. It is this which the author\n     helps us to gain.\"--_Chicago Tribune._\n\n\n    By P. A. CHADBOURNE,\n    _President of Williams College_.\n\n\n   I. Natural Theology; or, Nature and the Bible.\n\n      From the same Author.\n\n      12mo, Cloth, $1.50.\n\n     \"Once taken up cannot be laid down unread.\"--_Washington\n     Republic._\n\n II. Instinct--Its Office in the Animal Kingdom, and Its Relation to the\n      Higher Powers in Man.\n\n     12mo, Cloth, $1.75.\n\n\n    By JOHN J. ELMENDORF,\n    _Professor of Mental Science in Racine College_.\n\n\nThe Outlines of the History of Philosophy.\n\n     12mo, Cloth.\n\n     A succinct Chronological Record and Analysis of Systems of\n     Philosophy from the earliest times to the present day, prepared\n     as a guide to the Student and to the general reader.\n\n\nBy JAMES MARTINEAU, D.D., LL.D.\n\n   I. Religion as Affected by Modern Materialism.\n\n      12mo, Cloth, 75 cents.\n\n  II. The Attitude of Materialism Towards Theology.\n\n      12mo, Cloth, $1.00.\n\n     \"The ablest analyses of Tyndall and his school of thought that\n     have yet appeared.\"--_London Spectator._\n\n\nVALUABLE BOOKS\n\nPUBLISHED BY\n\nG. P. PUTNAM'S SONS,\n\nNew York.\n\n\nI. Tent Life in Siberia. ADVENTURES AMONG THE KORAKS AND OTHER TRIBES IN\nKAMCHATKA AND NORTHERN ASIA. Fifth Edition. 12mo, cloth extra $2 00\n\n     \"We strongly recommend this book as one of the most\n     entertaining volumes of travel that have appeared for some\n     years.\"--London Athenaeum.\n\nII. Travels in Portugal. By JOHN LATOUCHE. With Photographic\nIllustrations. Octavo, cloth extra 3 50\n\n     \"A delightfully written book, at fair as it is pleasant. * * *\n     Entertaining, fresh, and as full of wit as of valuable\n     information.\"--London Spectator.\n\nIII. The Abode of Snow. A TOUR THROUGH CHINESE TIBET, THE INDIAN\nCAUCASUS, AND THE UPPER VALLEYS OF THE HIMALAYA. By ANDREW WILSON.\nSquare octavo, cloth extra, with map 2 25\n\n     \"There is not a page in this volume which will not repay\n     perusal. * * * The author describes all he meets with on his\n     way with inimitable spirit.\"--London Athenaeum.\n\nIV. The Life and Journals of John J. Audubon, the Naturalist. Comprising\nNarratives of his Expeditions in the American Forests, &c. 12mo, cloth\nextra, with Portrait 2 25\n\n     \"It is a grand story of a grand life; more instructive than a\n     sermon; more romantic than a romance.\"--Harpers' Magazine.\n\nV. Notes on England and Italy. By Mrs. NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE (wife of the\nNovelist). Third edition. 12mo, cloth 2 00\n\nIllustrated Edition, with 12 Steel Plates. Octavo, cloth extra, gilt\nedges 5 00\n\n     \"One of the most delightful books of travel that have come\n     under our notice.\"--Worcester Spy.\n\n     \"The grace and tenderness of the author of the 'Scarlet Letter'\n     is discernable in its pages.\"--London Saturday Review.\n\nVI. Recollections of a Tour Made in Scotland in 1803. By DOROTHY\nWORDSWORTH (Sister of the Poet). Edited by PRINCIPAL SHAIRP, LL.D. 12mo,\ncloth extra 2 50\n\n     \"The volume glistens with charming passages, showing how rich\n     in 'Wordsworthian' fancy was this modest sister.\"--London\n     Athenaeum.\n\nVII. Bayard Taylor's Travel. Complete in 10 Vols. Containing works upon\nAfrica; Egypt; Iceland; California and Mexico; Greece and Russia; India,\nChina and Japan; Palestine, Asia Minor, Sicily and Spain; Sweden,\nDenmark and Lapland; Europe, &c., &c. Per volume 1 50\n\nOr, 11 Volumes, neatly put up in box 16 50\n\n     \"There is no romance to us quite equal to one of Bayard\n     Taylor's books of travel.\"--Hartford Republican.\n\nPUTNAM'S NEW CATALOGUE will be forwarded to any address on receipt of\nstamp.\n\n\nBOOKS BY OCTAVIUS B. FROTHINGHAM.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF HUMANITY. AN ESSAY.\n\nThird Edition--Revised. Price, $1.50.\n\n     \"Nobody can peruse this book without respect for the learning,\n     mental honesty and skill in the statement of his convictions,\n     possessed by the author, and for the essential integrity and\n     philanthropic tendency of his spirit.\"--_Springfield\n     Republican._\n\n     \"A profoundly sincere book, the work of one who has read\n     largely, studied thoroughly, reflected patiently. * * * It is a\n     model of scholarly culture and of finished and vigorous\n     style.\"--_Boston Globe._\n\n     \"A marked book, forming a most important contribution to our\n     religious literature.\"--_Boston Register._\n\n\nTHE CHILD'S BOOK OF RELIGION.\n\nFor Sunday-Schools and Homes. Price, $1.00.\n\n\nTHE SAFEST CREED, AND OTHER DISCOURSES.\n\n12mo, Cloth, $1.50.\n\n     We commend these discourses, not \"as food for babes,\" but as\n     full of suggestion for earnest and thoughtful men.\n\n\nSTORIES FROM THE LIPS OF THE TEACHER.\n\nWith Frontispiece. Cloth, $1.00.\n\n     \"The Parables are so re-told as to absorb the attention of the\n     reader, and to fasten upon the mind what the writer believes to\n     have been the impression the Saviour meant to convey. It is in\n     style and thought a superior book, and will interest alike\n     young and old.\"--_Zion's Herald_ (Methodist.)\n\n\nSTORIES OF THE PATRIARCHS.\n\nWith Frontispiece. Cloth, $1.00.\n\n     \"A work of culture and taste; it will be welcome to all ages,\n     and gives the sublimest lessons of manhood in the simple\n     language of a child.\"--_Springfield Republican._\n\n\nBELIEFS OF THE UNBELIEVERS. A LECTURE.\n\n12mo, Paper, 25 cents.\n\n\nTRANSCENDENTALISM IN NEW ENGLAND. A HISTORY.\n\nWith sketches and studies of Emerson, Alcott, Parker, Margaret Fuller,\nthe Brook-Farm Community, etc.\n\n8vo, Cloth extra, with steel portrait of the author, $2.50.\n\n\nTHE LIFE OF THEODORE PARKER.\n\n8vo. With Portrait, $3.00.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Cradle of the Christ: A Study in Primitive Christianity","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":56719}