{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40458/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40458","id":"gutenberg_40458","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40458","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ -- Biography"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\n    Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as\n    possible, including some inconsistencies in hyphenation. Some\n    changes of spelling and punctuation have been made. They are\n    listed at the end of the text.\n\n    Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\n The REAL JESUS\n of the\n FOUR GOSPELS\n\n _By_ J. B. ATWATER\n\n MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.\n 1922\n\nCopyrighted, 1921\n\nJ. B. ATWATER\n\n\n\n\nTHIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO ALL THOSE WHO, IN AGES PAST, HAVE SUFFERED OR\nSHED THEIR BLOOD ON ACCOUNT OF CREEDS, DOGMAS, THEOLOGIES, INQUISITIONS\nOR OTHER PERVERSIONS OF THE SIMPLE, ALL-SUFFICIENT RELIGION TAUGHT BY\nJESUS: LOVE THE LORD, THY GOD, WITH ALL THY HEART, AND THY NEIGHBOR AS\nTHYSELF.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe first part of this work is a collation of all that is said, and just\nwhat is said, in each of the four Gospels, regarding the more important\nincidents of Jesus' life. Every statement in the text, it is thought, is\naccurate, free from personal coloring or sectarian bias, and may be\nverified from the passages cited. After examining various lives of\nJesus, harmonies of the Gospels, etc., there seemed to be need of such a\nwork, which would furnish simply the facts, and leave the reader to form\nhis own conclusions.\n\nCertain notes are appended in elucidation of or comment on the text, and\nthese may be taken for what they are worth. Their underlying idea is,\nthat the true greatness of Jesus lay in His being a human Teacher and\nnot a Divine Redeemer, and therefore the supernatural parts of the\nGospel story are not of vital importance.\n\nThe King James version has been used, since that has been the Bible of\nEnglish-speaking peoples up to the present century, and their\nconceptions of Jesus have been formed from it, and not from the revised\nversion. The differences between the two versions are probably not\nmaterial to any matter herein discussed.\n\nThe second part is an attempt to point out, and comment on, the many and\nwide divergences that have grown up between the preachings of Jesus and\nthe practices of His professed followers. Its object is not to criticise\nthe short-comings of Christianity, but to bring home to the people of\nthe United States a realization of the practical effect which these\ndivergences have had, and are now having, on political and economic\nquestions of high import to the present and future welfare of mankind.\n\n\n\n\nThe REAL JESUS of the FOUR GOSPELS\n\n\n\n\nPART I\n\n\nGENEALOGY\n\nMark and John give no genealogy of Jesus, except that He was the son of\nJoseph and Mary (Mark III:31; VI:3; John I:45; II:1; XIX:25), and is\nspoken of as the son of David (Mark X:47, 48; XI:10; John VII:42).\n\nMatthew gives a genealogy from Abraham down to Joseph (Chap. I), and\nLuke gives one from Joseph up to Adam (III:2, 23-28).[1]\n\nThese two lines of ancestry are the same from Abraham down to David.\nThere they diverge into two separate lines. Matthew has the next in\ndescent Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba, former wife of Uriah, the\nHittite (1 Chron. III:5). Luke has, in place of Solomon, his fullblood\nbrother Nathan (1 Chron. III:5).[2]\n\nFrom this point down, there is little agreement between the two lines of\ndescent.\n\nEven as to the father of Joseph, Matthew has Jacob, while Luke says his\nname was Heli. They agree as to Joseph's grandfather--Matthan or\nMatthat--but, as to his great grandfather, Matthew has Eleazar, while\nLuke has Levi.\n\nAs to Matthew's line of descent from Solomon, most of his names will be\nfound in I Chron. Chap. III, although there are several differences.\nWhere Luke obtained his names of Nathan's descendants, does not\nappear.[3]\n\n\nCONCEPTION\n\nMatthew and Luke state that Jesus was conceived of Mary, when a virgin,\nby the Holy Ghost (Matt. Chap. I, Luke Chap. I).\n\nMark and John are silent on the subject, except as they speak of Jesus\nas being the son of Joseph and Mary (Mark III:31; VI:3; John I:45; II:1;\nXIX:25).\n\nMatthew says that Joseph, after he was \"espoused\" to Mary and was her\n\"husband\", but before they \"came together\", discovered that she was with\nchild and was \"minded to put her away privily.\" But an angel of the Lord\nappeared to him in a dream, and told him that his \"wife\" was with child\nby the Holy Ghost,[4] and would bring forth a son, and that he should\ncall His name Jesus. Matthew adds that this was in fulfillment of an Old\nTestament prophesy, \"Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall\nbring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel\" (Isaiah\nVII:14).[5]\n\nLuke gives the name of the angel, to-wit: Gabriel,[6] but he appears to\n_Mary_ instead of to _Joseph_. He also appeared _before_ Mary's\nconception, instead of _after_, as in Matthew.[7] Apparently Mary, while\n\"espoused\" to Joseph, was not yet his \"wife\", since she asks the angel\nhow she shall conceive, \"seeing that I know not a man?\" (Luke I:34).[8]\nIt would also seem that the appearance of the angel was not in a dream,\nsince his conversation with Mary is related as any ordinary conversation\nbetween two natural persons.[9]\n\n\nPRE-NATAL INCIDENTS\n\nLuke gives (Chap. I) a quite lengthy account of the conception of John\nthe Baptist, which is very similar to the story of the conception of\nSamson in the Old Testament (Judges Chap. XIII). He also tells of a\nthree months' visit of Mary to Elisabeth, mother of John the Baptist\nand Mary's cousin (Luke I:36), and of Elisabeth's recognition of Mary as\nthe mother of \"My Lord\" (Luke I:43).[10] While Mary treated the\nannouncement of the angel rather indifferently (Luke I:38), she now, on\nthis salutation of Elisabeth, pours out a grand hymn of invocation and\nthanksgiving for the blessing that has come upon her (Luke I:46-55).\n\nThe three other evangelists are silent as to these incidents and do not\nmention any relationship between Jesus and John.\n\n\nBIRTH AND CHILDHOOD\n\nMark and John furnish no information as to the life of Jesus prior to\nHis baptism by John.\n\nBoth Matthew and Luke agree in giving Bethlehem of Jud\u00e6a as the place of\nJesus' birth. Apparently Matthew considered Bethlehem the then residence\nof Joseph and Mary, for he says nothing of their presence there being\ntemporary, and Joseph, when he returned from Egypt, was going back to\nJud\u00e6a (Bethlehem), but, on being warned of God in a dream, \"he turned\naside into the parts of Galilee; and he came and dwelt in a city called\nNazareth\" (Matt. II:22, 23). Luke, however, says that Joseph and Mary\ncame down to Bethlehem from Nazareth to be taxed (or enrolled), and,\nbecause there was no room for them in the inn, Jesus, when born, was\nlaid in a manger. Matthew does not mention any manger, but, on the other\nhand, the \"wise men of the East\" find the family in \"the house,\" as\nwould be natural if Bethlehem was Joseph's residence (Matt. II:11).\n\nMatthew alone tells the story of the visit of the wise men from the East\n(Matt. II:1-2). He does not tell us the country from which they came,\nnor how they learned of the approaching birth of Jesus, the usual _deus\nex machina_ of Matthew and Luke--an angel in a dream--not being used\nhere, although he appears in warning the wise men not to see Herod on\ntheir return (Matt. II:12).\n\nMatthew also relates that it was revealed to the \"wise men\" that Jesus\nwas to be \"king of the Jews\" (Matt. II:2). But Jesus never used this\ntitle as applying to Himself, and, that He did use it, was one of the\n\"false\" charges made against Him at His trial (John XVIII:33, 34, 36).\n\nLuke also has a visit to the new born Jesus, but it is of shepherds \"in\nthe same country,\" instead of strangers from the East. To these\nshepherds appeared, not a star, but first one angel and then \"a\nmultitude of the heavenly host.\" This gives Luke the opportunity to\nintroduce a beautiful hymn of greeting to the new born Babe, which is\nentirely lacking in Matthew (Luke II:10-14). The shepherds did their\nhomage by \"glorifying and praising God,\" instead of by gifts of gold and\nfrankincense and myrrh (Matt. II:11).\n\nMatthew is the only one of the evangelists to tell of the slaying by\nHerod of \"all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts\nthereof from two years old and under,\" and the flight of Joseph and Mary\nto Egypt (Matt. II:16-23).[11]\n\nLuke alone tells of the visit to the temple when Jesus was twelve years\nold, and of His meeting the \"doctors,\" \"both hearing them and asking\nthem questions\" (Luke II:46).[12]\n\n\nBAPTISM OF JESUS\n\nJohn's baptism of Jesus is the first event in the latter's life which\nall four evangelists unite in recording. The earlier events related by\nMatthew and Luke--Mark and John either do not know, or do not believe,\nor do not deem worth recording.\n\nJohn begins his preaching about the year A. D. 26 (Luke III:1).\nApparently Jesus was \"about thirty years of age\" when He was baptized\n(Luke III:23). The four Gospels describe at some length, and with\nsubstantial agreement, the preaching of John and the incidents of the\nbaptism (Matt. III, Mark I, Luke III, John I).\n\nMatthew's narrative covers seventeen verses, and John recognizes Jesus,\nfor he says, \"I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to\nme?\" (Matt. III:14).\n\nIt does not appear that any one but Jesus saw the dove descending from\nheaven, or heard the voice (Matt. III:16-17).\n\nMark's narrative is the most concise, covering eleven verses, and\nomitting one or two points of John's preaching and his recognition of\nJesus, as given in Matthew (Mark I:1-11). It does not appear that John\nknew or greeted Jesus in any way, or that any one but Jesus saw the dove\nor heard the voice.\n\nLuke expands the story to twenty-two verses (Luke III:1-22), adding some\npoints of John's preaching not given in Matthew or Mark. The baptismal\nceremony is condensed into two verses, and, as in Luke, it does not\nappear that John recognized Jesus, or that any one but Jesus saw the\ndove or heard the voice.\n\nJohn's account covers twenty-two verses (John I:15-36), and differs\nquite markedly from the other three. This Gospel adds a material point\nto John's preaching not in the others (John I:15-18), and omits certain\npoints appearing in the others. The actual baptism itself is not\ndescribed, but John speaks of it as an event that had occurred. He did\nnot recognize Jesus on first meeting Him (contrary to Matthew's\nversion): \"And I knew Him not\" (John I:31, 33). But \"I saw the spirit\ndescending from heaven like a dove and it abode upon Him\" (John I:32).\nAnd \"He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon\nwhom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same\nis He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost\" (John I:33). On account of\nthis sign, therefore, he accepted Jesus as the \"Lamb of God.\"[13]\n\n\nJESUS' MISSION AS HE CONCEIVED IT DURING HIS LIFE-TIME\n\nFrom this point on, the accounts of Jesus' movements in the four Gospels\nare so confusing and contradictory that the only feasible plan seems to\nbe to follow one Gospel to its end, noting similarities or differences\nin the other Gospels as they occur in the course of the narrative.\n\nBut, before starting on this, it seems necessary to grasp clearly just\nwhat was Jesus' basic purpose in this, His life-work. Probably nine out\nof ten of His followers of today would say that it was to redeem mankind\nand convert the world to His teachings. Now, the evidence of the four\nGospels is directly contrary to this view. Jesus had little regard for\nthe Gentiles or Heathen, and no interest whatever in their conversion.\nHis references to them are usually derogatory and rather contemptuous\n(Matt. VI:32; X:18; XVIII:17; XX:19; Mark X:33, 42, 43; Luke XXII:25),\nalthough there are one or two exceptions, when He is upbraiding the Jews\nfor their unbelief (Matt. VIII:10; XI:21).\n\nApparently He never preached to the Gentiles, and was loath to exercise\nHis healing powers for their benefit. When the woman of Canaan besought\nHim to cure her daughter, He at first refused on the ground that His\nhealing powers were reserved for the Jews. \"It is not meet to take the\nchildren's bread and cast it to _dogs_\" (Matt. XV:26).\n\nIn His instructions to His apostles and disciples (Matt. X; Mark\nVI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6), He does not enjoin on them to preach to the\nGentiles, but, on the contrary, expressly prohibits them from doing so.\n\"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and, into any city of the\nSamaritans, enter ye not\" (Matt. X:5; see also Matt. X:23).\n\nThe apostles, as judges in heaven, are to have jurisdiction, not over\nthe Gentiles, but only over Jews. \"Ye, also, shall sit upon twelve\nthrones, judging the _twelve tribes of Israel_\" (Matt. XIX:28).\n\nThe angel who announced Jesus' conception to Joseph said that \"He shall\nsave _His people_ from their sins\"--not the whole world or \"all nations\"\n(Matt. I:21). So the angel who announced the conception of Jesus to Mary\nsaid that God should give unto Him the throne of His father David, and\nthat He should \"reign over the _house of Jacob_ forever\" (Luke I:32,\n33).\n\nOne of the first recorded utterances of Jesus is: \"Think not that I come\nto destroy the Law or the prophets. I am not come to _destroy_, but to\n_fulfill_\" (Matt. V:17). The converted Paul, with the over-zeal that\noften marks converts, conceived that his own mission was to _destroy_\nthe old Jewish law, and worked most successfully towards that end,\novercoming the opposition of Peter, James, John and other intimate\nassociates of Jesus (Gal. Chap. II). But Jesus, in adhering to the old\nLaw, necessarily excluded from His scheme of redemption all Gentiles and\nothers who did not practice circumcision and similar obligatory rites of\nthe Jewish faith.\n\nFinally, we have Jesus' own clear and positive declaration of His\nunderstanding of His mission. \"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of\nthe house of Israel\" (Matt. XV:24).\n\nAs against this explicit statement of His position, the two ambiguous\nreferences to some future (apparently after His death) preaching of His\nGospel \"for a witness unto all nations,\" or that it \"must first be\npublished among all nations,\" can have no weight (Matt. XXIV:14; Mark\nXIII:10).\n\nThe evidence establishes beyond a doubt that the characterization of\nJesus by Paul and others who had never heard or seen Him, as an evangel\nto the Gentiles and a redeemer of mankind, was not only not authorized\nby Jesus, but was explicitly repudiated by Him. His only mission, as He\nconceived it, was to bring back the Jews to the true, simple worship of\nthe God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[14]\n\nThat Jesus failed in this mission must be admitted. At first the people\nflocked in multitudes to listen to His preaching. This was due in part\nto their expectation of a coming Messiah and, no doubt, in part to the\neffect of John's work. But what the Jews expected was an earthly\nkingdom and a ruler who would give them victory over the heathen. They\nhad no interest whatever in a spiritual kingdom. Their disappointment\nwas bitter when they found that Jesus promised them only a kingdom in\nheaven. Nor were they affected by such miracles as healing the sick,\nmaking the blind to see, the lame to walk, etc. The miracles they\ndemanded were those of the Old Testament, when the Lord of Hosts visited\nHis overwhelming wrath upon the armies of their enemies.\n\nHis neighbors of Galilee were the first to fall away from Jesus, and\napparently He felt this defection deeply (Compare Matt. IV:25 with Matt.\nXIII:57, 58; Mark I:28 with VI:4, 5, 6). Even His own brothers did not\nbelieve in Him (John VII:5).\n\nThis opposition to Him spread (Matt. XI:20; XIII:57), and gradually\ndeepened into active animosity, so that He was on occasions driven out\nof different places, or was in danger of stoning or death (Matt.\nVIII:34; Luke IV:29; John VII:I, 19, 44; VIII:59; X:39).\n\nFinally the end came at Jerusalem, when His personal adherents had\napparently dwindled down to a few besides His apostles. Jerusalem had\nalways shown Him little favor, but, at this time of the Passover, it was\nfilled with Jews from all parts of their country. Yet, when Pilate\noffered to release Him to the people, there was none to ask for His\nfreedom. At the very last, even all His disciples fled from Him (Matt.\nXXVI:56).\n\nSome small bands or sects of Jewish followers survived His death, but\ntheir numbers constantly diminished, and all of them disappeared within\na few centuries after His death. From that time to this the Jews have\nconsistently, and practically unanimously, rejected Jesus' teachings and\nHis claims to be their Messiah.[15]\n\n\nJESUS' FAST IN THE WILDERNESS\n\nMatthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus, after His baptism by John, was\n\"led up,\" or driven \"of the Spirit\" into the wilderness, staying there\nforty days fasting and being \"tempted of the devil\" (Matt. IV:1-11; Mark\nI:12, 13; Luke IV:1-13). Mark says that this was \"immediately\" after the\nbaptism, and condenses the event into two verses. Matthew and Luke give\nin detail the temptations of the devil. Matthew and Mark mention that\nJesus was ministered to by angels. Luke adds at the end that the devil\ndeparted from Him \"for a season.\"[16]\n\nJohn directly contradicts this story of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He gives\nJesus' movements specifically for three days after His baptism. On the\nfirst day He calls two of His apostles, Andrew and his brother Simon\nPeter (John I:35-42). On the second day He calls Philip, and here occurs\nthe interview with Nathaniel (John I:43-51), which appears only in this\nGospel. On the third day Jesus, instead of fasting in the wilderness,\nattends a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, and performs what John says\nwas His first miracle--the turning of water into wine (John II:1-11).\n\n\"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His\nbrethren and His disciples; and they continued there not many days\"\n(John II:12). \"And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to\nJerusalem\" (John II:13).\n\n\nTHE CALLING OF THE APOSTLES\n\nMatthew says that, after the fasting in the wilderness and after a visit\nto Nazareth, Jesus \"came and dwelt in Capernaum\" on the coast of the Sea\nof Galilee (Matt. IV:12,13). As He was walking by the sea, he found\nPeter and Andrew fishing, and summoned them to follow Him (Matt.\nIV:18,19,20). Going on from thence He found James and John fishing and\nsummoned them also (Matt. IV:21-22). Matthew does not tell us of the\ncircumstances of the calling of the other apostles except Matthew. After\nthe delivery of the Sermon on the Mount, and the performance of various\nmiracles, and Jesus had come into Capernaum (Matt. IX:1; IV:13),[17] as\nHe \"passed forth from thence, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the\nreceipt of custom; and He saith unto him, follow me, and he arose and\nfollowed Him\" (Matt. IX:9). Matthew speaks several times of the\n\"disciples\" (apostles)[18] collectively, both before and after the\ncalling of Matthew (Matt. V:1; VIII:23,25; IX:19). The names of the\ntwelve are given in Chap. X:1-4.\n\nMark has the same account as Matthew of the calling of Peter, Andrew,\nJames and John, but in place of the calling of Matthew has the\nfollowing: \"And as He passed by he saw _Levi_, the son of Alphaeus,\nsitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, follow me. And he\narose and followed Him\" (Mark II:14). After this Mark several times\nmentions His \"disciples\" (Mark II:15, 16, 18, 23; III:7, 9), and later\nsays that He \"ordained twelve that they might be with Him and that He\nmight send them forth to preach\" (Mark III:14). Both Matthew and Mark\ngive James \"the son of Alphaeus,\" as one of the apostles, but not Levi.\n\nLuke relates that Jesus found Peter, with James and John, his\n\"partners,\" fishing by the \"Sea of Gennesaret\" (Galilee), and called\nthem and they followed Him (Luke V:1-11). He omits any mention of Andrew\nand adds two new incidents, that Jesus \"taught the people out of the\nship,\" and that Peter and the others put out their nets and they\n\"inclosed a great multitude of fishes; and their net broke.\"\n\nA little later Jesus \"saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt\nof custom,\" and He said to him, \"Follow me, and he left all, rose and\nfollowed Him\" (Luke V:27, 28).\n\nLuke adds here the incident that Levi \"made Him a great feast,\" at which\npublicans and others sat down, and the scribes and Pharisees rebuked the\ndisciples, saying \"Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners?\"\n(Luke V:27-32).[19]\n\nAt some uncertain time later Jesus called \"unto Him His disciples, and\nof them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles\" (Luke VI:13). Then\nfollow the names, the same as in Matthew and Mark.\n\nJohn's story is somewhat variant. Jesus' baptism took place at\nBethabara, beyond Jordan, in the Decapolis, and some distance both from\nNazareth and the Sea of Galilee. Here, on the next day, Jesus meets John\nand two of His disciples (John I:35, 36). One of these is Andrew, and he\nbrings His brother Simon Peter to Jesus. The two acknowledge Him as the\nMessiah, and thereafter follow Him (John I:40-42). The following day\nJesus finds Philip and makes him one of His disciples (John I:43). There\nis no further mention of any specific apostles being called by Jesus,\nalthough there are constant references to His disciples being with Him\n(John II:2, 12, 17; III:22; IV:8). There is no specific account of the\nchoosing of the twelve, although the Gospel mentions later that they had\nbeen chosen (John VI:67, 70).\n\nIn the last chapter of John \"Nathaniel of Cana\" is mentioned apparently\nas one of the twelve apostles (John XXI:2), although his name is not in\nthe lists of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He was probably the same Nathaniel\nwho appears earlier in this Gospel (John I:43-51).\n\n\nTHE SERMON ON THE MOUNT\n\nThe Sermon on the Mount is the first discourse by Jesus narrated by\nMatthew, and is the longest connected discourse to be found in the four\nGospels. The place of its delivery is not fixed other than that \"He went\nup into a mountain,\" but it was probably some elevation of land in\nGalilee, near Capernaum (Matt. IV:13). The time of its delivery is also\nnot fixed, although it must have been shortly after the baptism by John.\nJesus had already done some preaching in Galilee and performed some\nmiracles (Matt. IV:23, 24), but the delivery of the sermon ante-dates\nall the specific miracles which Matthew relates. The discourse covers\nthree chapters (109 verses) of Matthew's text.\n\nThere is, in the four Gospels, no other connected discourse\ncorresponding to the Sermon on the Mount, except in Luke. In Chapter VI\nhe gives a discourse covering twenty-nine verses of his text, which are\nsubstantially the same as corresponding verses of the Sermon on the\nMount. The place of the delivery of this discourse is not fixed, except\nthat it was on a \"plain\" (Luke VI:17), probably near Capernaum (Luke\nVII:1). The time is not fixed, except that Luke's sermon on the plain\noccurs _after_ a number of miracles and other events (Luke IV:33-44;\nVI:1-19), while in Matthew's narrative the Sermon on the Mount occurs\n_before_ these events (Matt. VIII and following).\n\nSome of the verses of this discourse will be found scattered through\nMark and John, but a considerable portion of it is entirely lacking. For\ninstance, the \"beatitudes\" do not appear in either Mark or John.[20]\n\n\nTHE LORD'S PRAYER\n\nIn Matthew the Lord's Prayer forms a part of the Sermon on the Mount\n(Matt. VI:9-13).[21]\n\nAccording to Luke (Luke XI:2-4) it was given to the disciples alone, and\nnot to a multitude, as in Matthew. In Luke it also comes at a much later\ndate than the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. One verse is slightly\ndifferent, Luke having, \"and forgive us our sins; for we also forgive\nevery one who is indebted to us,\" in place of Matthew's \"and forgive us\nour debts as we forgive our debtors.\" Luke also omits the last sentence\nin Matthew's version.\n\nThe Lord's Prayer is not found in Mark or John.[22]\n\n\nTHE FIRST MIRACLES\n\nMatthew says, in a general way, that Jesus healed \"all manner of\nsickness\" before the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. IV:23,\n24). But the first specific miracles which he describes occurred after\nthat event (Matt. VIII:1-15). The first was the leper, the second the\ncenturion's servant, afflicted with palsy, and the third was the mother\nof Simon Peter's wife, who was \"sick of a fever.\" Jesus saw and touched\nthe leper and Peter's wife's mother, but the centurion's servant was one\nof the few cases where the cure was effected in the absence of the\npatient and without Jesus' seeing him.\n\nThe curing of the leper is described by Mark (I:40) and by Luke (V:12).\nLuke describes the healing of the centurion's servant (VII:1-10),\ndiffering only in that the friends of the centurion came to Jesus\ninstead of the centurion in person, as in Matthew.\n\nMark and Luke both relate the curing of Peter's wife's mother (Mark\nI:30; Luke IV:38).\n\nJohn mentions none of these miracles, but, alone of all four\nevangelists, narrates the miracle at Cana of changing water into wine\n(John II:1-10), and says that this was Jesus' first miracle (John\nII:11). He then describes the curing of the sick \"son of a nobleman of\nCapernaum\" (John IV:46-53), and says that this was the second miracle\n\"which Jesus did when He was come out of Jud\u00e6a into Galilee,\" viz: after\nHis baptism by John (John IV:54). The circumstances of this miracle are\nquite similar to those of the centurion's servant described by Matthew\nand Luke, the cure being effected in the absence of the patient.\n\nMatthew next gives the miracle of the stilling of the tempest (Matt.\nVIII:23-27), which is also found in Mark (IV:35-41), and in Luke\n(VIII:22-25). This miracle is not found in John.\n\nThen follows the miracle of driving the devils out of the two men of the\n\"country of the Gergesenes,\" and sending them into a herd of swine which\n\"ran violently down a steep place into the sea and perished in the\nwaters\" (Matt. VIII:28-34).\n\nMark narrates the same miracle as occurring in the country of the\nGadarenes, except there is one man instead of two (Mark V:1-20). The\nsufferings of this man, who is possessed of \"an unclean spirit,\" are\ndescribed in some detail. The spirit, being asked for his \"name,\" says,\n\"My name is Legion; for we are many.\" Thereupon he or they beseech Jesus\nnot to send them away out of the country, but: \"Send us into the swine,\nthat we may enter into them.\" Jesus \"gave them leave,\" and they entered\ninto the swine (\"they were about two thousand\") and the swine ran\nviolently down a steep place, and \"were choked in the sea.\"\n\nLuke's account (Luke VIII:26-40) follows substantially that of Mark.\nThere was one man in the country of the Gadarenes \"which had devils a\nlong time.\" The devil or devils besought Jesus \"that He would not\ncommand them to go out into the deep,\" but would send them into the\nswine. This Jesus does, and the swine run down a steep place and are\nchoked in the sea.\n\nAll three accounts agree that, after the miracle, \"the whole city,\" or\n\"the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about,\"\nbesought Jesus to depart from them. The only reason given for this\naction is the statement of Luke \"for they were taken with great fear\"\n(Luke VIII:37).\n\nJohn does not mention this miracle.[23]\n\n\nTHE RAISING OF THE DEAD\n\nThere are three miracles of this class in the Gospels.\n\nThe first (apparently) in point of time is related by Luke (Luke\nVII:11-17).[24] The day after the curing of the centurion's servant at\nCapernaum (Luke VII:1), Jesus went into a city called Nain, with \"many\nof His disciples\" and \"much people\" (Luke VII:11). Nain was an inland\ncity in the southern part of Galilee, some distance from Capernaum and\nthe sea of Galilee. This is the only time that this city is mentioned\nin the four Gospels. As Jesus approaches the city, the dead man is\ncarried out, followed by his mother, a widow, and \"much people of the\ncity\" (Luke VII:12). Apparently without any solicitation, Jesus tells\nthe dead man to arise, \"and he that was dead sat up and began to speak\"\n(Luke VII:13, 14, 15). The dead man and his relatives are not otherwise\nidentified and there is no reference to this miracle in any of the other\nGospels.\n\nThe next miracle of this class is that of Jairus' daughter.\n\nMatthew relates that, while Jesus was at Capernaum after the miracle of\nthe Gadarene swine (Matt. IX:1, 10), a \"certain ruler\" came to Him and\nsaid: \"My daughter is even now dead; but come and lay Thy hand upon her,\nand she shall live\" (Matt. IX:18). In answer to this request Jesus and\nHis disciples go to the ruler's house, and find \"the minstrels and the\npeople making a noise.\" Jesus says, \"Give place, for the maid is not\ndead but sleepeth. And they laughed Him to scorn. But when the people\nwere put forth, He went in and took her by the hand, and the maid arose\"\n(Matt. IX:23, 24, 25). On the way to the ruler's house occurs the\nmiracle of the woman with an issue of blood touching Jesus' garment and\nbeing cured (Matt. IX:20, 21, 22).\n\nMark places this miracle immediately after that of the Gadarene swine,\nwhen Jesus had passed over the sea (Galilee) unto the other side\n(Capernaum), nigh unto the sea (Mark V:21). \"One of the rulers of the\nsynagogue, Jairus by name,\" came to Him and told Him, \"My little\ndaughter lieth at the point of death\" (Mark V:23). Jesus takes with him\nonly Peter and James and John, and, on the way to the ruler's house,\nword is brought that the daughter is dead (Mark V:35, 37). Jesus brings\nthe father, mother, Peter, James and John into the girl's room, takes\nher by the hand and bids her arise. At once she arose and walked, \"for\nshe was of the age of twelve years\" (Mark V:40, 41, 42). The curing of\nthe woman with the issue of blood is also given, but at considerable\nmore length than in Matthew (Mark V:25-34).\n\nLuke's account (Luke VIII:41-56) is substantially the same as that of\nMark. The daughter \"lay a dying\" when Jairus went to get Jesus, and word\nof her death comes just as the miracle on the woman with an issue of\nblood is performed. Jesus took the father and mother and Peter, James\nand John into the house, but, apparently, excluded them from the girl's\nroom, when he performed the miracle. \"And He put them all out, and took\nher by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise\" (Luke VIII:54).\n\nThe raising of Lazarus from his grave is told only by John (John\nXI:1-46). It occurred late in Jesus' prophetic career, very shortly\nbefore the last Passover (John XI:55; XII:1, and following). Jesus was\nthen at Bethabara in Decapolis (John X:40; I:28). Lazarus and his\nsisters, Mary and Martha, were living in Bethany, in Jud\u00e6a, quite near\nJerusalem, but some little distance from Bethabara. Jesus already knew\nthe family and \"loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.\" Lazarus\nfalling sick, the sisters send to Jesus saying, \"Lord, behold, he whom\nThou lovest is sick\" (John XI:3). Jesus does not go at once but waits\ntwo days (John XI:6). Apparently the reason for this delay is that,\ninstead of healing a sick man, He may raise a dead man from the grave\n\"that the Son of God might be glorified thereby\" (John XI:4, 11-15).\nWhen Jesus came to Bethany, He \"found that he (Lazarus) had lain in the\ngrave four days already\" (John XI:17). Martha first, and then Mary, came\nout to meet Jesus, and express their belief that, if He had been there,\nLazarus would not have died; but are in doubt as to his now being\nrestored to life (John XI:24, 32, 39). They then go to the grave, which\n\"was a cave and a stone lay upon it\" (John XI:38). Jesus then \"cried\nwith a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth,\nbound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face was bound about\nwith a napkin\" (John XI:43-44).[25]\n\n\nTHE LOAVES AND FISHES\n\nMatthew relates that Jesus departed hence (from Capernaum, Matt.\nXIII:54) \"by ship into a desert place apart\" (Matt. XIV:13). This was\njust after the beheading of John the Baptist by Herod (Matt. XIV:10, 11,\n12). A \"great multitude\" followed Jesus, \"and He healed their sick\"\n(Matt. XIV:14). At evening the disciples wished Jesus \"to send the\nmultitude away that they may go into the villages and buy themselves\nvictuals\" (Matt. XIV:15). But Jesus said, \"Give ye them to eat.\" They\nhad but five loaves and two fishes, and Jesus took these and broke them\nand the disciples distributed them to the multitude (Matt. XIV:16-19).\n\"And they did all eat and were filled; and they took up of the fragments\nthat remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about\nfive thousand men, besides women and children\" (Matt. XIV:20, 21).\n\nMark, Luke and John follow very closely the narrative of Matthew, Luke\nadding the detail that the \"desert place\" belonged to the city of\nBethsaida[26] (Mark VI:30-45; Luke IX:10-17; John VI:1-13).\n\nA similar miracle is related by Matthew and Mark (Matt. XV:29-39; Mark\nVIII:1-9) as occurring shortly after the first, on a mountain near the\nsea (Galilee) in \"the midst of the coasts of Decapolis\" (Mark VII:31).\nThere were seven loaves and a \"few small fishes,\" seven baskets full of\nthe broken food were left, and they that did eat \"were four thousand\nmen, besides women and children\" (Matthew), or \"about four thousand\"\n(Mark).\n\nLuke and John do not give this miracle.\n\n\nOTHER MIRACLES\n\nBesides those already mentioned, the following specific miracles are\nfound in Matthew, the details of which it is not necessary to give.\nThese are outside of general and indefinite statements of persons cured\nof various afflictions.\n\n(a) The curing at Capernaum of the man sick of the palsy (Matt. IX:1-7).\nSee Mark II:1-12, Luke V:17-26, where the sick man is let down on his\nbed through the roof.\n\n(b) The giving sight to two blind men, apparently at Capernaum (Matt.\nIX:27-31).\n\n(c) Restoring his speech to a dumb man at the same time and place (Matt.\nIX:32-34).\n\n(d) Curing of the man with the withered hand (Matt. XII:10-13). The\nplace of this miracle is uncertain.\n\n(e) The case of the blind and dumb man possessed of a devil (Matt.\nXII:22, 23). The circumstances of this miracle are the same as in (c).\n\n(f) The walking on the waters (Matt. XIV:22-23) near the land of\nGennesaret (Matt. XIV:34). See Mark VI:47-52; John VI:16-21.\n\n(g) The curing of the daughter of the Gentile woman \"vexed with a devil\"\n(Matt. XV:22-28). The place of this miracle was \"the coasts of Tyre and\nSidon\" (Matt. XIV:21).\n\n(h) The curing of the lunatic son of a \"certain man\" (Matt. XVII:14-18).\nThis occurred in some part of Galilee not specified (Matt. XVII:1, 22,\n24). See also Mark IX:17-27; Luke IX:37-42.\n\n(i) The curing of the two blind men near Jericho (Matt. XX:30-34). See\nalso Mark X:46-52; Luke XVIII:35-43.\n\n(j) The blasting of the fig tree near Bethany (Matt. XXI:18-20). See\nMark XI:12-14, who explains the absence of figs on the tree--\"for the\ntime of figs was not yet.\"[27]\n\n\nTHE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APOSTLES\n\nMatthew devotes an entire chapter to this subject (Matt. X). This is the\nfirst time in Matthew's narrative that the term \"Apostles\" is applied to\nthe followers or disciples of Jesus (Matt. X:2). Up to this point he has\nmentioned specifically the calling of only five of the apostles (Matt.\nIV:18, 21; IX:9), although there are possible references to others\n(Matt. VIII:19, 21).\n\nThe first injunction is that they shall not preach to the Gentiles or\nSamaritans, but \"to the lost sheep of the house of Israel\" (Matt. X:5,\n6).\n\nThe only instruction as to the subject-matter of their preachings is\nthat they shall say \"the kingdom of heaven is at hand\" (Matt. X:7).\n\nThey are told to \"heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead,\ncast out devils\" (Matt. X:8).\n\nThey are to provide no money for their expenses and carry little raiment\n(Matt. X:9,10).\n\nWhen they enter into a city, they are to seek a worthy house and abide\ntherein, and, if a city will not receive and hear them, \"It shall be\nmore tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment\nthan for that city\" (Matt. X:11-15).\n\nThe remainder of the chapter contains warnings of the trials that will\nbefall the apostles on their mission, admonitions against losing their\ncourage and promises of the rewards that will follow the faithful\nperformance of their work. Jesus also predicts the family dissensions\nthat will accompany the gradual introduction of His Gospel, and in that\nconnection uses the expression: \"Think not that I am come to send peace\non earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword\" (Matt. X:34).\n\nThe place of this statement is not fixed, nor the time, except that it\nappears in the narrative after the Sermon on the Mount and the raising\nof Jairus' daughter.\n\nMark tells how Jesus went \"up into a mountain and calleth unto Him whom\nhe would\" (Mark III:13). He then \"ordained twelve, that they should be\nwith Him, and that He might send them forth to preach\" (Mark III:14).\nThen follow the names of the twelve apostles, the calling of four of\nwhom Mark had already related (Mark I:16-20). At a somewhat later time\nhe tells of the sending forth of the twelve apostles, but condenses the\ninstructions to them into four verses (Mark VI:7-13).\n\nLuke tells that Jesus, \"having gone out into a mountain to pray, called\nunto Him His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named\napostles\" (Luke VI:13, 14). The calling of Andrew, Peter, James and\nJohn, and of Levi (if he were one of the apostles) had already been\ngiven (Luke V:1-10, 27, 28). The instructions to the apostles appear\nlater in his narrative and are condensed into three verses (Luke\nIX:1-6).\n\nLuke alone of the four evangelists tells that, at a later date, Jesus\n\"appointed other seventy also\" to go before Him and preach (Luke X:1).\nTo these seventy are given instructions similar to those given to the\ntwelve in Matthew (Luke X:2-12).\n\nJohn tells of the calling of Andrew, Peter and Philip (John I:40, 41,\n43), but has no account of any special instructions given to the\napostles.[28]\n\n\nTHE TEMPERATE LIFE\n\nIn rebuking the obduracy of the then generation of the Jews, Jesus\nillustrates His view of right living, viz: temperance in all things.\n\n\"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a\ndevil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a\nman gluttonous and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners\"\n(Matt. XI:18, 19).\n\nIn the face of the example of asceticism set by John the Baptist, Jesus\nneither fasted Himself, nor did He enjoin fasting on His disciples\n(Matt. XI:18, 19; IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33). While He objected to\nthe charge of excess, He both ate meat and drank wine in moderation, and\ninculcated the same practice on His disciples. \"And in the same house\nremain eating and drinking such things as they give\" (Luke X:7). He must\nhave been companionable in His every-day life, for He both entertained\nin His own house (Matt. IX:10; Mark II:15), and was a welcome guest at\nentertainments given in His honor. \"And Levi made Him a great feast at\nHis own house\" (Luke V:29). \"And it came to pass as He went into the\nhouse of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day\"\n(Luke XIV:1). \"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of\nGalilee; and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus was called\nand His disciples to the marriage\" (John II:1, 2). \"There they made Him\na supper\" (John XII:2).[29]\n\nHe could sympathize with the spirit of joy and cheer appropriate to such\noccasions, for when the wine failed at the wedding in Cana, He provided\na fresh supply, better than the first (John II:3-10).\n\n\nTHE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH\n\nOn a certain Sabbath day, Jesus and His disciples were passing through\nthe corn fields (Matt. XII:1; Mark II:23; Luke VI:1). Luke says that it\nwas \"the second Sabbath after the first,\" probably calling \"the first\"\nthe one on which Jesus preached in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke\nIV:16). The disciples, being hungry, began to pluck and eat the ears of\ncorn. The Pharisees object that they \"do that which is not lawful to do\non the Sabbath day.\" Jesus cites the example of David eating the\nshew-bread in the house of God, and says that if they understood the\nmeaning of the saying, \"I will have mercy and not sacrifice,\" they would\nnot have condemned the guiltless. \"And He said unto them, The Sabbath\nwas made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man\nis Lord also of the Sabbath\" (Mark II:27).\n\nOn another Sabbath day (Luke VI:1, 6), a man with a withered hand was in\nthe synagogue, and the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus, \"Is it lawful\nto heal on the Sabbath days? That they might accuse him.\" Jesus cites\nthe case of a sheep falling into a pit on the Sabbath day, and says:\n\"Wherefore it is lawful to _do well_ on the Sabbath day.\" Thereupon He\nrestores the man's hand \"whole\" (Matt. XII:10-13).\n\nIn Mark and Luke, Jesus asks the question of the scribes and Pharisees\nas to whether it was lawful to _do good_ on the Sabbath day. \"But they\nheld their peace. And when He had looked round about on them with anger,\nbeing grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He saith unto the man,\nstretch forth thine hand\" (Mark III:1-5; Luke VI:6-10).\n\nAgain Jesus is teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath and cures a\nwoman of a \"spirit of infirmity\" of eighteen years' continuance. The\n\"ruler of the synagogue\" objects \"with indignation\" to this healing on\nthe Sabbath, because \"there are six days in which men ought to work.\"\nJesus says: \"Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath\nloose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering\"\n(Luke XIII:11-17).\n\nAnother similar case occurred when Jesus \"went into the house of one of\nthe chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath,\" and healed a certain\nman \"which had the dropsy.\" Here He cites against the Pharisees the\nillustration of an ass or an ox falling into a pit on the Sabbath day\n(Luke XIV:1-6).\n\nJohn records two more cases of cures being performed on the Sabbath day,\nand of the Pharisees objecting to them as unlawful acts (John V:1-17;\nIX:1-38. See John VII:23).[30]\n\n\nTHE TRANSFIGURATION\n\nSix (or eight) days after certain preaching, Jesus \"taketh Peter, James\nand John\" and \"bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was\ntransfigured before them; and His face did shine as the sun, and His\nraiment was white as the light\" (Matt. XVII:1, 2). Moses and Elias then\nappear and talk with Jesus (Matt. XVII:3). Peter proposes that they make\nthree tabernacles (Matt. XVII:4). A cloud then overshadows them and a\nvoice comes out of the cloud, saying, \"This is my beloved Son, in whom I\nam well pleased; hear ye Him\" (Matt. XVII:5). The disciples are afraid,\nfall on their faces, but Jesus touches them and tells them to arise and\nbe not afraid (Matt. XVII:6, 7). When they arise they see no man, except\nJesus (Matt. XVII:8). As they come down from the mountain, Jesus\ncharges them, \"Tell the vision to no man, until the _Son of Man_ be\nrisen again from the dead\" (Matt. XVII:9).\n\nMark follows closely the narrative of Matthew, and adds that the\ndisciples \"kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with\nanother what the rising from the dead should mean\" (Mark IX:2-10).[31]\n\nLuke follows the accounts of Matthew and Mark, adding that the disciples\nwere \"heavy with sleep,\" but saw the vision when they awoke, and \"they\nkept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which\nthey had seen\" (Luke IX:28-36).\n\nJohn says nothing about this vision.\n\n\nTHE EVENTS PRECEDING JESUS' ARREST\n\nAbout the middle of his Gospel, Matthew says, \"From that time forth\nbegan Jesus to shew unto His disciples\" His future trial, death and\nresurrection at Jerusalem (Matt. XVI:21). Peter, with his faith in\nJesus' earthly power, \"began to rebuke\" Him, saying that this should not\nbe done unto Him (Matt. XVI:22). But Jesus turned on him and said, \"Get\nthee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me; for thou savorest\nnot the things that be of God, but those that be of men\" (Matt. XVI:23.\nSee also Matt. XVII:22, 23).\n\nMark and Luke both give this incident, although Luke omits the rebuke of\nPeter (Mark VIII:31-33; Luke IX:22).\n\nIn all three Gospels the incident closely follows Peter's declaration of\nJesus as \"Christ, the Son of the living God\" (Matt. XVI:16; Mark\nVIII:29; Luke IX:20).\n\nAgain, at a later date, as Jesus is going up to Jerusalem, He predicts\nto His disciples the fate that is there awaiting Him (Matt. XX:17-18;\nMark IX:31, 32; X:32; Luke XVIII:31).\n\nJust when these communications were made to the disciples is not clear,\nbut the earliest of them must have been some time before the last visit\nto Jerusalem, since they precede much of Jesus' teaching and many of His\nparables and miracles.[32]\n\nAs the last Passover approached, Jesus \"departed from Galilee and came\ninto the coasts of Jud\u00e6a beyond Jordan\" (Matt. XIX:1). He continued His\npreaching as He journeyed, and finally came to Bethphage, nigh unto\nJerusalem (Matt. XXI:1). From there He sends two of His disciples to a\nneighboring village, and they bring to Him an ass and her colt (Matt.\nXXI:1-7). Riding on the ass (or the colt), He makes His entry into\nJerusalem. The multitude spread their garments, and branches from the\ntrees, in the way, crying out, \"Hosanna to the son of David,\" and salute\nHim as \"Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee\" (Matt. XXI:7-11).[33]\nJesus then went into the temple, drove out those who bought and sold\ntherein,[34] and healed the blind and lame (Matt. XXI:12-16).\n\nLeaving Jerusalem, Jesus goes to Bethany (Matt. XXI:17) to the house of\nSimon the leper (Matt. XXVI:6). On the following day He returns to\nJerusalem, and on the way occurs the blasting of the fig tree (Matt.\nXXI:18-23). It would seem that Jesus must have spent some time in\nBethany, preaching in the day time in Jerusalem, since there follow four\nand a half chapters of preaching and parables, which were delivered\nbefore the Passover (Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII; XXIII; XXIV; XXV).[35]\n\nWhile Jesus was at Simon's house in Bethany, sitting at meat, a woman\n(who, it seems, was Lazarus' sister Mary; see John XI:2) came in with an\nalabaster box of very precious ointment and poured on His head. The\ndisciples object to this as a useless waste, but Jesus rebukes them and\ncommends the woman for her act (Matt. XXVI:6-13).\n\nMark follows closely Matthew's narrative to this point, except that\nJesus rides into Jerusalem on a colt, \"whereon man never sat\" (Mark\nXI:2; Luke XIX:30), and except that the cleansing the temple of the\nmoney changers is omitted (Mark XI:11).\n\nLuke adds to the accounts of Matthew and Mark the encounter with\nZacchaeus, and Jesus' entertainment by him (Luke XIX:1-7). According to\nhim, it was \"the whole multitude of the disciples\" who greeted Jesus on\nHis entry into Jerusalem (Luke XIX:37). Luke omits the anointing of\nJesus by Mary.\n\nJohn omits the cleansing of the temple, which he had already given at a\nmuch earlier date (John II:13-17), and says that Mary anointed the feet\nof Jesus and wiped them with her hair, instead of pouring the ointment\nover His head (John XII:3-8).\n\n\nTHE LAST SUPPER\n\nAs the feast of unleavened bread of the Passover approaches, Jesus sends\nPeter and John (Luke XXII:8) into Jerusalem to secure a room, in which\nHe and His disciples may eat, or \"kill\", the Passover (Matt.\nXXVI:17-19). The room is secured, the Passover made ready, and \"when the\nevening was come, He sat down with the twelve\" (Matt. XXVI:20).[36]\n\nWhile they were eating, Jesus tells the twelve that one of them shall\nbetray Him, and indicates, in a rather veiled way, that Judas is the\none. They all ask, \"Master, is it I?\" and He says to Judas, \"Thou hast\nsaid\" (Matt. XXVI:20-25).\n\nJesus then blesses the bread and the wine, and gives them to eat and\ndrink and says: \"I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,\nuntil that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom\"\n(Matt. XXVI:26-29).\n\nAfter singing a hymn, they go to the Mount of Olives, and Jesus warns\nthem of the approaching calamity. \"All ye shall be offended because of\nme this night.\" The apostles, and especially Peter, affirm that they\nwould die rather than deny Him. Jesus says to Peter: \"Verily I say unto\nthee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice\"\n(Matt. XXVI:30-35).\n\nJesus with the disciples then goes \"unto a place called Gethsemane.\" He\ntakes Peter and James and John a little farther and says to them, \"My\nsoul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.\" He goes apart from them\nand prays, \"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;\nnevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.\" He returns to find the\ndisciples sleeping. He repeats the prayer twice, and then says to them,\n\"Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the\nhands of sinners\" (Matt. XXVI:36-45).\n\nIn Mark the two disciples are sent into the city to meet a man \"bearing\na pitcher of water.\" They are to follow him into whatsoever house he\nshall go in, and there secure the guest chamber. This was done, \"and\nthey made ready the Passover\" (Mark XIV:12-16).\n\nWhile they are eating, Jesus tells them that one of them shall betray\nHim--\"one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish,\" but does not\nspecify which one it is. The other incidents of the evening follow (Mark\nXIV:17-42) as in Matthew.\n\nLuke recounts the passing of the bread and wine, and the saying of Jesus\nthat one of the twelve should betray Him, without specifying which one\n(Luke XXII:22).\n\nHe then relates a new incident (that is, at this feast), a strife among\nthe apostles as to which should be greatest. Jesus rebukes them, telling\nthem not to imitate the Gentiles, but that he that is chief should be as\nhe that serveth (Luke XXII: 24-30).[37]\n\nThe prediction of Peter thrice denying his master takes a little\ndifferent form. Instead of saying to the apostles, \"All ye shall be\noffended because of me this night,\" Jesus addresses Himself to Peter\nalone. Evidently, having some doubt of his constancy, He says: \"Simon,\nSimon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as\nwheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.\" Peter then\nasserts, \"Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison and to\ndeath.\" Jesus then predicts that Peter will deny Him thrice before the\ncock crows (Luke XXII:31-34).\n\nThere follows a passage very difficult to understand, in view of the\nfact that a short time later Jesus rebukes one of His followers for\ncutting off the ear of the high priest's servant. He reminds His\napostles of the time when He sent them forth without purse or scrip, and\nthey lacked for nothing. He then tells them that now they should take\nboth purse and scrip, \"and he that hath no sword, let him sell his\ngarment and buy one.\" \"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.\nAnd He said unto them, It is enough\" (Luke XXII:35-38).\n\nThe visit to the Mount of Olives and the prayer offered there is\ndescribed more briefly than in Matthew or Mark. There is no mention of\nthe garden of Gethsemane, but Luke adds that an angel from heaven\nappeared, \"strengthening Him\" (Luke XXII:39-46).\n\nJohn's version of the Last Supper is quite different from that of the\nother three evangelists. He omits any description of the selection of\nthe place for the feast. He places the supper before the Passover,\napparently correctly, instead of its being the celebration of the\nPassover, as in the other three Gospels (John XIII:1). He omits any\nmention of the blessing and passing of the bread and wine. He alone of\nthe evangelists relates that, after the supper, Jesus took a basin of\nwater and a towel, and washed the apostles' feet, impressing on them a\nlesson in humility (John XIII:4-17). Jesus says to the apostles that one\nof them shall betray Him. Peter and John ask Him, \"Who is it?\" Jesus\nanswers, \"It is the one to whom I shall give a sop.\" He then gives the\nsop to Judas, and says, \"What thou doest, do quickly.\" Judas goes away\nat once, although none of the apostles (unless Peter and John)\nunderstand that He is accused (John XIII:18-30). After his departure,\nJohn has Jesus delivering a long discourse, covering four chapters and\npart of another, none of which appears at this time in the other three\nGospels. After this is finished, Jesus goes with His disciples over \"the\nbrook Cedron,\" into a garden, but there is no mention of the praying\nthere, which appears in the other Gospels (John XVIII:1).\n\n\nTHE BETRAYAL\n\nOn Tuesday or Wednesday of this Passover week the \"chief priests and the\nscribes and the elders of the people\" came together unto the palace of\nCaiaphas, the high priest, and determined on Jesus' death (Matt.\nXXVI:3). Judas Iscariot then comes to them and promises to deliver Jesus\nto them in consideration of thirty pieces of silver (Matt. XXVI:14-16).\nPrevious to this last visit to Jerusalem, Jesus had predicted His death\nand betrayal, but without indicating that His betrayer would be one of\nthe apostles (Matt. XVI:21; XX:18-19). At the last supper Jesus\nindicates Judas as His betrayer, but somewhat equivocally, since the\nother apostles, if they had understood he was the traitor, would\nundoubtedly have cast him out of their society. So far as appears, he\ncontinued to take part in the supper (Matt. XXVI:21-25). Just after\nJesus had finished His prayer in the garden, Judas comes with a great\nmultitude of the chief priest's servants, carrying swords and staves. In\naccordance with a pre-arranged plan, Judas kisses Jesus, and thereupon\nthe servants of the priests lay hands on Him and take Him (Matt.\nXXVI:47-50). One of those with Jesus draws his sword and strikes off the\near of one of the high priest's servants. Jesus rebukes him, saying,\n\"For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword\" (Matt.\nXXVI:51-54). \"Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled\" (Matt.\nXXVI:56). But Peter followed \"Him afar off unto the high priest's\npalace, and went in, and sat with the servants to see the end\" (Matt.\nXXVI:58). Then follows the fulfillment of Jesus' saying that Peter\nshould deny Him thrice before the crowing of the cock (Matt.\nXXVI:69-75).\n\nJudas, when he saw that Jesus was condemned, brought the thirty pieces\nof silver to the chief priest in the temple, saying, \"I have sinned in\nthat I have betrayed the innocent blood.\" The chief priests tell him,\n\"What is that to us? See thou to that.\" Thereupon Judas cast down the\nmoney in the temple, went away and hanged himself (Matt. XXVII:3-6).\n\nMark tells of the conspiracy of the chief priests and scribes, and that\nJudas went to them and offered to betray Jesus. \"They were glad and\npromised to give him money\" (Mark XIV:1, 2, 10, 11). Before this, Jesus\nhad predicted His approaching death to the apostles, but had said\nnothing of any betrayal (Mark IX:31; X:33). At the last supper Jesus\nsays that one of the twelve shall betray Him, but does not identify in\nany way which one it is (Mark XIV:18-21). Mark then relates, as in\nMatthew, the kissing of Jesus by Judas (Mark XIV:43-45), the cutting off\nthe ear of the high priest's servant (Mark XIV:47), the desertion of\nJesus by all the apostles (Mark XIV:50), Peter's following Him afar off\nto the palace of the high priest (Mark XIV:54), and denying Him thrice\nbefore the cock should crow twice (Mark XIV:66-72). What subsequently\nhappened to Judas, Mark does not state.[38]\n\nAccording to Luke, the chief priests and scribes had formed their\nconspiracy to kill Jesus at a somewhat earlier date than in the other\nGospels (Luke XX:19). They watched and sent forth spies to listen to His\nwords and obtain material for their charges (Luke XX:20). Jesus had\nalready predicted His suffering and death at Jerusalem, but did not\nmention His betrayal (Luke XVIII:31-33). But the apostles \"understood\nnone of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew\nthey the things which were spoken\" (Luke XVIII:34).\n\nAs the priests and scribes are planning the time of killing Jesus (Luke\nXXII:2), \"then entered Satan into Judas,\" and he went to Jesus' enemies\nand offered to betray Him (Luke XXII:3, 4). \"And they were glad and\ncovenanted to give him money\" (Luke XXII:5). At the supper Jesus says\nthat one of those at the table shall betray Him, but does not indicate\nwhich one (Luke XXII: 21-23). At the Mount of Olives Judas came at the\nhead of a multitude and \"drew near unto Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus\nsaid unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the _Son of Man_ with a kiss?\"\n(Luke XXII:47-48). Jesus then heals the servant, whose ear was cut off\n(Luke XXII:50, 51). Peter followed Him to the house of the high priest,\nand denied Him thrice before the cock crew (Luke XXII:54-62). Nothing is\nsaid about Judas' subsequent fate.\n\nAccording to John, Jesus knew from the beginning \"who should betray Him\"\nand at an early date told the apostles, \"Have not I chosen you twelve,\nand one of you is a devil?\" (John VI:64, 70).\n\nAt or before the last supper the devil put it into Judas' heart to\nbetray his Master (John XIII:2, 27). Jesus tells the apostles that one\nof them shall betray Him (John XIII:21). Peter and John desire to know\nwhich one of them He means, and Jesus tells John that it is the one to\nwhom He shall give a sop. He then dips a sop and gives it to Judas, with\nthe remark, \"What thou doest, do quickly\" (John XIII:22-27). \"Now, no\nman at the table knew for what intent He spoke this unto him\" (John\nXIII:28). John alone says that Judas immediately went out into the night\n(John XIII:30).\n\nAfter Jesus had finished His discourse at the supper, and gone into the\ngarden, Judas appears with a band of men and officers from the chief\npriests and Pharisees (John XVIII:1-3). Jesus then \"went forth and said\nunto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus\nsaith unto them, I am he. And Judas, also which betrayed Him, stood with\nthem\" (John XVIII:4, 5). Simon Peter then cuts off the right ear of\nMalchus, a servant of the high priest, and Jesus rebukes him (John\nXVIII:10, 11). Peter and another disciple, who was known to the high\npriest, follow Jesus to the palace, and there Peter makes his denial\nthree times before the cock crows (John XVIII:15, 16, 17, 18, 25-27).\n\nThe subsequent fate of Judas is not related.[39]\n\n\nTHE TRIAL\n\nImmediately after His arrest, Jesus is taken away to \"Caiaphas the high\npriest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled\" (Matt.\nXXVI:57).[40]\n\nThe council seek \"false witnesses\" against Jesus and at first have some\ndifficulty in finding any. \"At the last came two false witnesses, and\nsaid: This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to\nbuild it in three days\" (Matt. XXVI:59, 60, 61). Interrogated as to this\ncharge, \"Jesus held His peace\" (Matt. XXVI:62, 63). The high priest then\nadjures Him to tell them whether He is \"the Christ, the Son of God\"\n(Matt. XXVI:63). \"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I\nsay unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the _Son of Man_ sitting on the\nright hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven\" (Matt. XXVI:64).\nThe high priest accepts this as a confession of blasphemy, and, on\nappeal to the council, they say, \"He is guilty of death\" (Matt. XXVI:65,\n66). They then indulge their spite against Jesus by spitting in His face\nand striking Him with their hands (Matt. XXVI:67, 68).[41]\n\nIn the morning (Friday) the chief priests bind Jesus and bring Him to\nPontius Pilate, the Roman \"governor\" or procurator (Matt. XXVII:1, 2).\nPilate asks Him, \"Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto\nhim, Thou sayest\" (Matt. XXVII:11).[42] He persists in maintaining His\nposition of silence or non-negation against all the accusations of the\nchief priests, \"insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly\" (Matt.\nXXVII:12-14). Pilate's wife, having been warned in a dream, sends word\nto him, \"Have thou nothing to do with that just man\" (Matt. XXVII:19).\nIt being a custom of the feast of the Passover that the governor should\nrelease one prisoner to the people, and Pilate, knowing that the chief\npriests had delivered Jesus to him out of \"envy,\" asks the multitude\nwhom he shall release unto them, Barabbas or Jesus (Matt. XXVII:15, 16,\n17, 20, 21). The multitude demands the release of Barabbas, and, on\nPilate's asking them what he shall do with Jesus, \"they all say unto\nhim, Let Him be crucified\" (Matt. XXVII:22). \"And the Governor said,\nWhy, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let\nHim be crucified\" (Matt. XXVII:23). Pilate then washed his hands before\nthe multitude, \"saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person;\nsee ye to it. Then answered all the people and said, His blood be on us,\nand on our children\" (Matt. XXVII:24, 25). Thereupon Pilate released\nBarabbas, and after he had scourged Jesus, delivered Him to be crucified\n(Matt. XXVII:26).\n\nIn Mark the charges before the Sanhedrim are the same as in Matthew with\nsome slight verbal changes (Mark XIV:53-66). To the question, \"Art Thou\nthe Christ, the Son of the Blessed?\" Jesus answers directly, \"I am.\"\n\nThe proceedings before Pilate are substantially the same as in Matthew\n(Mark XV:1-15).\n\nAccording to Luke, the session of the Sanhedrim was held \"as soon as it\nwas day,\" instead of in the night, immediately after Jesus' arrest (Luke\nXXII:66). The only charge here is, \"Art Thou the Christ?\" Jesus, after a\nfew words, recognizing the futility of any defense, says, \"Ye say that I\nam\" (Luke XXII:66-71).\n\nLuke's account of the proceedings before Pilate is more detailed than,\nand somewhat different from, that of Matthew and Mark. The charge is\nmaliciously distorted so as to offend the political susceptibilities of\nthe Romans. \"We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding\nto give tribute to C\u00e6sar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King\"\n(Luke XXIII:2). Pilate, after questioning Jesus, says at once, \"I find\nno fault in this Man\" (Luke XXIII:4). This makes the chief priests the\nmore fierce, and they press again their charges, mentioning that\nJesus comes from Galilee (Luke XXIII:5). Galilee being in Herod's\njurisdiction, and Herod being then in Jerusalem, Pilate sends Jesus to\nhim, probably hoping thus to rid himself of the whole trouble (Luke\nXXIII:6, 7).[43] Herod questions Jesus, who answers him nothing, and\nthen with his men of war mocks Jesus, arrays Him \"in a gorgeous robe,\"\nand sends Him back to Pilate (Luke XXIII:8-11). Pilate then calls\ntogether the \"chief priests and the rulers and the people,\" and tells\nthem that both he and Herod have examined Jesus, and lo, \"nothing worthy\nof death is done unto Him\" (proved against Him) (Luke XXIII:13-15). \"I\nwill, therefore, chastise Him and release Him\" (Luke XXIII:16). \"And\nthey cried out all at once, saying, Away with this Man, and release unto\nus Barabbas\" (Luke XXIII:18). Twice more Pilate urges that Jesus be\nreleased, but they insist that He be crucified. Pilate finally yields\nand \"gave sentence that it should be as they required\" (Luke\nXXIII:20-24).\n\nNeither Mark nor Luke nor John mentions that Pilate publicly washed his\nhands of responsibility for Jesus' sentence.\n\nJohn's account of the trial is very indefinite. Jesus was first taken to\nAnnas,[44] the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest, and Annas\nsent Him bound unto Caiaphas (John XVIII:13, 14). There was probably a\nsession of the Sanhedrim, though this is not clear, and it was probably\nat the house of the high priest (John XVIII:15). No specific charges\nagainst Jesus are mentioned, but the high priest asked Him \"of His\ndisciples, and of His doctrine\" (John XVIII:19). Jesus replies that He\nhas spoken openly, and said nothing in secret, and that the priest\nshould ask those who had heard Him (John XVIII:19, 20, 21, 23). No\nformal condemnation of Jesus is related, nor is it said who was present\nexcept the high priest.\n\nThen \"they\" bring Jesus to Pilate \"unto the hall of judgment,\" but \"they\ncannot enter in, because it would defile them for the eating of the\nPassover that night (John XVIII:28). Pilate then comes out to them and\nasks what accusation they have against Jesus (John XVIII:29). They evade\nthe issue by saying, \"If He were not a malefactor, we would not have\ndelivered Him up to thee\" (John XVIII:30). Pilate very aptly tells them\nto take Him and judge Him according to their Law, but they reply, \"It is\nnot lawful for us to put any man to death\" (John XVIII:31). Pilate\nthereupon goes back to the judgment hall, and, after an examination of\nJesus, comes out and says, \"I find in Him no fault at all\" (John\nXVIII:33-38). He then suggests that, according to custom, he release\nJesus unto them. \"Then cried they all again, saying, Not this Man, but\nBarabbas\" (John XVIII:39, 40).\n\nUpon this Pilate has Jesus scourged, a crown of thorns put on His head,\nand a purple robe about Him, and has the soldiers hail Him as King of\nthe Jews (John XIX:1-3). He once more brings Jesus before the people and\nstates that he finds no fault in Him.[45] The Jews still insist that by\ntheir law He ought to die, \"because He made Himself the Son of God\"\n(John XIX:4-7). Pilate goes back into the judgment hall, and talks\nfurther with Jesus, evidently hoping to find some way out of his dilemma\n(John XIX:8-11). \"And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him; but\nthe Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this Man go, thou art not\nC\u00e6sar's friend\" (John XIX:12). Pilate makes one more effort to save\nJesus, but, failing, delivers Him over to be crucified (John XIX:13-16).\n\n\nTHE CRUCIFIXION\n\nThe soldiers, taking Jesus, at first mocked Him, putting on Him a\nscarlet robe and a crown of thorns, spitting on Him and smiting Him\n(Matt. XXVII:27-30). They then put His own raiment on Him, and took Him\nto the place of Crucifixion, on the way impressing a \"man of Cyrene,\nSimon by name,\" to carry His cross (Matt. XXVII:31, 32). When they\nreached Golgotha, they gave Him vinegar to drink, mixed with gall, but,\non tasting it, Jesus refused to drink (Matt. XXVII:33, 34). They then\ncrucified Him with two thieves, one on each hand, and parted His\nraiment, casting lots (Matt. XXVII:35, 38). Over His head they set up\n\"His accusation written: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews\" (Matt.\nXXVII:37). The passers-by and the chief priests and the two thieves\nmocked and reviled Him on account of His prophecies and His failure to\nsave Himself (Matt. XXVII:39-44). The Crucifixion was apparently at the\nsixth hour, and darkness was over the land until the ninth hour (Matt.\nXXVII:45). Jesus then cried out in a loud voice, \"Eli, Eli, lama\nsabachthani\" (Matt. XXVII:46). Some of them who stood there thought that\nHe called for Elias; one of them took a sponge filled with vinegar and\ngave it to Him to drink (Matt. XXVII:47, 48). \"Jesus, when He had cried\nagain with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost\" (Matt. XXVII:50). Then\nwas the veil of the temple rent in twain, and \"the earth did quake and\nthe rocks rent\" (Matt. XXVII:51). Graves were opened, and bodies of the\nsaints which slept arose, \"and came out of the graves after His\nresurrection,\" and appeared to many in the \"holy city\" (Matt. XXVII:52,\n53). When the centurion and the soldiers saw these things done, \"they\nfeared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God\" (Matt. XXVII:54).\nThere were many women from Galilee, \"beholding afar off,\" including Mary\nMagdalene, Mary, Jesus' aunt, and also the mother of the apostles James\nand John (Matt. XXVII:55, 56). \"When the even was come\" Joseph, a rich\nman of Arimath\u00e6a, takes Jesus' body, Pilate, at his request having\ndelivered it to him, wraps it \"in a clean linen cloth,\" and lays it in\nhis own new tomb, \"hewn out in the rock.\" He rolls a great stone to the\ndoor of the sepulchre and departs (Matt. XXVII:57-60). On the following\nday the chief priests come to Pilate and tell him of Jesus' prophecy,\nthat after three days He would arise again. They express their fears\nthat the disciples may steal the body and claim that He was risen from\nthe dead. Pilate gives them a watch, and \"they went, and made the\nsepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch\" (Matt.\nXVII:62-66).[46]\n\nMark follows closely the narrative of Matthew, except he says that they\noffered Jesus wine mingled with myrrh to drink,[47] instead of vinegar\nand gall (Mark XV:23). Mark omits the supernatural happenings at the\ndeath of Jesus, except that the veil of the temple was rent in twain\n(Mark XV:38).\n\nHe also omits any account of the sealing of the sepulchre, or the\nsetting of a watch over it (Mark XV:46, 47).\n\nLuke omits the ill-treatment of Jesus by the soldiers before starting on\ntheir march (Luke XXIII:25, 26). \"And there followed Him a great company\nof people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him (Luke\nXXIII:27). Jesus delivers a short address to the women, which does not\nappear in the other Gospels (Luke XXIII:28-31). They bring Him to\nCalvary and crucify Him and the two \"malefactors\" (Luke XXIII:33). \"Then\nsaid Jesus, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do\" (Luke\nXXIII:34). The superscription over Him was written in letters of Greek,\nLatin and Hebrew (Luke XXIII:38). Luke alone relates that, when one of\nthe \"malefactors\" railed at Jesus, the other rebuked Him, and asked\nJesus to remember him, when He should come into His kingdom; Jesus says\nto him: \"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise\" (Luke XXIII:39-43).\nThe sun was darkened and the \"veil of the temple was rent in the midst\"\n(Luke XXIII:44, 45). The centurion acknowledges Jesus to be a righteous\nman, and \"all the people that came together to that sight\" smote their\nbreasts (Luke XXIII:47, 48), \"and all His acquaintance and the women\nthat followed Him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding these things\"\n(Luke XIII:49). Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a obtains Jesus' body from Pilate, and\nlays it in a new sepulchre, hewn in stone (Luke XXIII:50-53), \"and the\nwomen also, which came with Him from Galilee, followed after and beheld\nthe sepulchre, and how His body was laid. And they returned and prepared\nspices and ointments\" (Luke XXIII:55, 56). No mention is made of any\nguard over the sepulchre.\n\nJohn does not mention the ill-treatment of Jesus by the soldiers, nor\nany Simon of Cyrene. According to him, Jesus Himself carried His cross\n(John XIX:17).[48]\n\nThe title on the cross, written in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, was \"Jesus\nof Nazareth, the King of the Jews.\"[49] The chief priests objected to\nPilate about this (probably considering it an insult to their nation),\nbut Pilate refused to change it (John XIX:19-22).\n\nJohn says that Jesus' mother, His aunt, Mary Magdalene and the disciple\n\"whom He loved,\" stood by the cross. Jesus recommends His mother to this\ndisciple's care, and \"from that hour that disciple took her unto his own\nhome\" (John XIX:25-27).[50]\n\nThe vinegar was then given Jesus to drink, and, at the request of the\nJews, the soldiers broke the legs of the two who were crucified with\nJesus, but \"they brake not His legs,\" because He was dead already. One\nof the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, \"came there out blood and\nwater\" (John XIX:28-37).[51]\n\nJohn does not mention any supernatural occurrences at the time of Jesus'\ndeath, Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a obtains Jesus' body \"secretly\" from Pilate,\nand, with the aid of Nicodemus, wound the body in linen with spices--\"A\nmixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight\"--\"as the\nmanner of the Jews is to bury\" (John XIX:38-40). \"Now, in the place\nwhere He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new\nsepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus\ntherefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was\nnigh at hand\" (John XIX:41, 42). No mention is made of the attendance of\nthe women, or of any guard being placed about the sepulchre.\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION\n\nAbout dawn on Sunday morning, the two Marys came to the sepulchre (Matt.\nXXVIII:1). The soldiers set to watch the tomb are there also (Matt.\nXXVIII:4). There is a \"great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord\ndescended from heaven, and came, and rolled back the stone from the\ndoor, and sat upon it\" (Matt. XXVIII:2). \"His countenance was like\nlightning, and his raiment white as snow\" (Matt. XXVIII:3). The angel\ntells the women that Jesus is risen, and bids them go quickly and tell\nHis disciples that He is risen from the dead; \"and, behold, He goeth\nbefore you into _Galilee_; there shall ye see Him\" (Matt. XXVIII:6, 7).\nAs the women were on their way to tell this to the disciples, \"Jesus met\nthem, saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and\nworshipped Him\" (Matt. XXVIII:9). Jesus says to them to be not afraid,\nand to tell His brethren that He will meet them in _Galilee_ (Matt.\nXXVIII:10). Some of the watch go into the city and tell the chief\npriests what has happened (Matt. XXVIII:11). The chief priests give the\nsoldiers \"large money\" to say, \"His disciples came by night and stole\nHim away while we slept\" (Matt. XXVIII:12, 13). The soldiers did as they\nwere taught, and \"this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until\nthis day\" (Matt. XXVIII:15). \"Then the eleven disciples went away into\nGalilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they\nsaw Him, they worshipped Him, but some doubted\" (Matt. XXVIII:16, 17).\nJesus then tells them to teach and baptize \"all nations\" (Matt.\nXXVIII:10).[52]\n\nAccording to Mark, the two Marys and Salome come to the tomb early\nSunday morning \"at the rising of the sun\" (Mark XVI:1). There was no\nwatch there, and the stone was rolled away from the door of the\nsepulchre (Mark XVI:2, 3). They go into the sepulchre and find there a\n\"young man, sitting on the right side, clothed in a long, white garment\"\n(Mark XVI:5). The young man says to them that Jesus is risen, and that\nthey should go and tell the disciples and Peter: \"He goeth before you\ninto _Galilee_,\" where they should see Him (Mark XVI:6, 7). The women\nfled quickly from the tomb, \"neither said they anything to any man; for\nthey were afraid\" (Mark XVI:8). Then, at some time and place not\nspecified, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (Mark XVI:9). She tells of\nthis appearance to \"them that had been with Him, as they mourned and\nwept,\" but they believeth not (Mark XVI:10, 11). \"After that He appeared\nin another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the\ncountry. And they went and told it unto the residue: Neither believed\nthey then\" (Mark XVI:12, 13). Afterward, at a time and place not\nspecified, Jesus appears to the eleven \"as they sat at meat,\" and\nupbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart in not\nbelieving the accounts of His previous appearances to Mary and the two\ndisciples (Mark. XVI:14). He then delivers a short exhortation to go\ninto all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, telling of\nthe signs that should follow belief, and the punishment that should\nfollow unbelief (Mark XVI:15, 18). \"So then, after the Lord had spoken\nunto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of\nGod\" (Mark XVI:19).[53]\n\nLuke relates that the two Marys, Joanna and \"other women\" went to the\ntomb on Sunday, \"very early in the morning\" (Luke XXIV:1, 10). There is\nno watch and the stone is rolled away (Luke XXIV:2). They enter the\nsepulchre, find the body of Jesus gone, and, as they stand there \"much\nperplexed,\" \"behold, two men stood by them in shining garments\" (Luke\nXXIV:3, 4). They were afraid, but the two men tell them that Jesus is\nrisen, as He had predicted, and as they now remember (Luke XXIV:5, 6, 7,\n8). The women then return and tell \"all these things unto the eleven and\nto all the rest,\" but \"their words seem to them as idle tales, and they\nbelieved them not\" (Luke XXIV:9, 11). Peter then goes to the sepulchre,\nfinds the linen clothes \"laid by themselves,\" but apparently sees\nnothing of the two men (Luke XXIV:12).\n\nOn the same day Cleopas[54] and another disciple go to a village called\nEmmaus, about three score furlongs from Jerusalem (Luke XXIV:13, 18).\n\nAs they are proceeding on their way, Jesus, in the guise of a stranger,\njoins them. Quite a long conversation follows, the disciples telling\nJesus the things that had happened to Him, and He expounding the\nScriptures to them. It is evening when they reach the village, and Jesus\n\"made as though He would go further.\" But the two disciples induce Him\nto tarry with them (Luke XXIV:15-29), \"and it came to pass as He sat at\nmeat with them, He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to\nthem. And their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished out\nof their sight\" (Luke XXIV:30, 31).\n\nThe two return to Jerusalem and, finding the eleven there, say to them,\n\"The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to _Simon_\" (Luke XXIV:32,\n33, 34). They then tell the disciples what happened to them on the way\n(Luke XXIV:35). \"As they thus spoke, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of\nthem\" (Luke XXIV:36). The disciples are terrified, and \"supposed that\nthey had seen a spirit\" (Luke XXIV:37). Jesus then tells them to see and\nhandle His hands and feet, and prove that He is real flesh and bones and\nnot a spirit. But \"they yet believed not for joy, and wondered.\" To\nfinally convince them He eats before them a piece of broiled fish and\nsome honeycomb (Luke XXIV:38-43). He then delivers a short discourse to\nthem, telling that these things have happened to Him that the Law and\nthe prophets might be fulfilled (Luke XXIV:44-49). They then went out to\nBethany and He blessed them, and \"while He blessed, He was parted from\nthem and carried up into heaven\" (Luke XXIV:50, 51).\n\nJohn says that Mary Magdalene came along to the sepulchre and found the\nstone rolled away (John XX:1). She then summons Peter and John, who\nenter and find the grave clothes lying around, but no body. They then\n\"went away again unto their own home.\" It is added, \"For as yet they\nknew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead\" (John\nXX:2-10). Mary remains weeping, and, looking again into the sepulchre,\nsees two angels in white there (John XX:11, 12). They ask her, \"Why\nweepest thou?\" and she says, \"Because they have taken away my Lord and I\nknow not where they have laid Him\" (John XX:13). She then turns and sees\nJesus standing, but supposes Him to be the gardener. She asks Him to\ntell her where they have laid Jesus, \"and I will take Him away,\" she\nsays (John XX:14, 15). Jesus then calls her by name, and she apparently\nrecognizes Him and calls Him Master (John XX:16). Jesus then tells her,\n\"Go unto my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your\nFather, and to my God and your God\" (John XX:17). Mary then reports\nthese things to the disciples, but John does not say whether they\nbelieved her, or, as Mark and Luke say, they disbelieved her (John\nXX:18). On this same Sunday evening, when the eleven, except Thomas, are\ntogether secretly for fear of the Jews, Jesus came to them and showed\nthem His hands and side. Then follows a short discourse from Jesus to\nHis disciples (John XX:20-23). When Thomas hears of this appearance, he\nexpresses his disbelief, unless he can put his fingers into the print of\nthe nails, and thrust his hand into His side (John XX:24, 25). Eight\ndays later Jesus appears again to His disciples, when Thomas is present,\nand tells the latter to make his verifications. Thomas says unto Him,\n\"My Lord and my God.\" Jesus then commends those who \"have not seen, and\nyet have believed\" (John XX:26-29).\n\nJohn's Gospel apparently at one time ended at this point (John XX:30,\n31), but Chapter XXI was subsequently added. Here there is related a\nthird appearance of Jesus, this time to six of the apostles and\nNathaniel of Cana (John XXI:1, 2). This occurred at the sea of Tiberias,\nand there was a miraculous draught of fishes (see Luke V:4, 5, 6), and a\nhint of Peter walking on the water (see Matt. XIV:28-31). At first the\ndisciples \"knew not that it was Jesus,\" and, even after John tells Peter\nthat it is the Lord, they seem to be under some restraint, \"and none of\nthe disciples durst ask Him, Who art thou, knowing that it was the\nLord\" (John XXI:3-12). After they had dined, there ensued some\nconversation between Jesus and Peter, and later with John, out of which\ncame the saying that the latter should not die (John XXI:15-23).\n\nIn neither of these appearances is there any account of Jesus ascending\nup into heaven, or of His instructing the disciples to preach His Gospel\nto all nations.[55]\n\n\n\n\nPART II\n\n\nMODERN CHRISTIANITY\n\nWith the death of Jesus, died also His dream of converting the Jews to\nHis religious ideas. A few scattered bands of followers--Nazarites or\nEbionites--survived Him. But they existed only in a moribund condition,\nexerted no influence over the nation, and, in the course of a few\ncenturies, disappeared from history. The Jews as a people rejected, and\nhave always rejected, both Jesus as a Messiah and His teachings as their\nreligion. If the Jews had then been an independent nation, living in\ntheir haughty isolation from other peoples, the power and hatred of the\nPharisees would probably have stamped out the last remnants of Jesus'\nfollowers, and He would have survived only as a name in history. But the\ndisciples (or apostles) found under the Roman rule protection for their\nteaching, and ready access to the Gentile communities, not only in\nPalestine, but throughout all the coasts of the Mediterranean. Among\nthese communities Jesus' Gospel found a quick and ready acceptance, and,\nwithin two or three centuries after His death, it had become a mighty\nliving force in the evolution of mankind. In the reign of Constantine,\nChristianity became the dominant religion in the Roman empire, and it\nrapidly brought under its influence the Northern Barbarians, who, in\ntheir turn, were to be the conquerors of this empire.\n\nAs Christianity grew and spread and became more powerful, it lost almost\nall resemblance to the religion of \"right living,\" which Jesus had\ntaught and practiced. The spiritual and temporal powers were once more\nre-united, dogmas, creeds, theological disquisitions multiplied, \"until\nthe fair body of religion, revealed in almost naked purity by the\nprophets, is once more hidden under a new accumulation of dogmas and of\nritual practices of which the primitive Nazarene knew nothing; and which\nHe would probably have regarded as blasphemous if He could have been\nmade to understand them.\"\n\n\"As, century after century, the ages roll on, polytheism comes back\nunder the disguise of mariolatry and the adoration of saints; image\nworship becomes as rampant as in old Egypt; adoration of relics takes\nthe place of the old fetich-worship; the virtues of the ephod pale\nbefore those of holy coats and handkerchiefs; shrines and calvaries make\nup for the loss of the ark and of the high places; and even the lustral\nwater of paganism is replaced by holy water at the porches of the\ntemples. A touching ceremony--the common meal originally eaten in pious\nmemory of a loved teacher--was metamorphosed into a flesh-and-blood\nsacrifice, supposed to possess exactly that redeeming virtue which the\nprophets denied to the flesh-and-blood sacrifices of their day; while\nthe minute observance of ritual was raised to a degree of punctilious\nrefinement which Levitical legislators might envy. And with the growth\nof this theology, grew its inevitable concomitant, the belief in evil\nspirits, in possession, in sorcery, in charms and omens, until the\nChristians of the twelfth century after our era were sunk in more\ndebased and brutal superstitions than are recorded of the Israelites in\nthe twelfth century before it.\"\n\n(Some Controverted Questions, Huxley, p. 159.)\n\nIn the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the leaders of the\nReformation and the New Learning began their relentless warfare upon the\nexisting formalism and superstition, and from two different points of\nattack. After centuries of bloody wars, Protestantism succeeded in\ndisplacing Catholicism as the dominant religion over a large part of\nNorthern Europe. Roman Catholicism still remained dominant in Southern\nEurope, and Greek Catholicism in Eastern Europe. In the meanwhile, to\nthe eternal disgrace of the then Christendom, the followers of Mahomet\nhad established his religion in some of the fairest portions of\nSoutheastern Europe. If the Christian nations of the fifteenth century\nhad expended on the practical cause of keeping Mohammedanism out of\nEurope one tithe of the energy and sacrifice that they did expend on the\nunpractical dream of recovering the Holy Sepulchre, Europe would have\nbeen spared the endless heritage of evil that has followed the\nintroduction of the unspeakable Turk into European politics. But mutual\njealousies, prejudices, petty ambitions, dissentions and discords\npermitted this calamity to occur, the end of which it seems is not yet.\n\nAs the Reformed churches became established in power, each one developed\nits own formalism, different from, but no more in consonance with,\nJesus' simple religion, than that of the Catholics. As dogmatic\ntheologians, Luther, Calvin, Knox and Jonathan Edwards were little\nimprovement over Loyola, Augustine and Justin. Predestination,\nfore-ordination, change of heart, infant damnation, eternal punishment,\nthe Thirty-nine Articles, the Augsburg Confession, would have been as\nunintelligible to Jesus, and would have met as summary condemnation at\nHis hands, as the quarrels between the homoi-ousians and the\nhomo-ousians, which rent the Christian world in the third century after\nHis death.\n\nBut a more formidable champion had entered the lists against dogmatic\ntheology and in favor of the creedless religion of Jesus. The invention\nof printing, the growth of science, the diffusion of education, and the\ndevelopment of a world-wide commerce were all working towards the\neradication of superstition, the breaking down of national and racial\nand religious antipathies and prejudices, the cultivation of relations,\nfirst of business, and then of mutual regard and friendship between the\npeoples of different countries, the constant amelioration of the\nroughness, harshness and cruelty of earlier times, the encouragement of\ncourtesy, consideration for others and charity towards all men. All\nthese forces were making for Jesus' ideal of a common humanity, where\nthe asperities of different religious creeds would cease to trouble, and\neach man might love his neighbor as himself. A tremendous victory had\nbeen won when the time came, that an Orthodox Catholic would admit that\nhis righteous-living Protestant neighbor might inherit heaven as surely\nas himself.\n\nThe optimist of the early years of this century might have hugged\nhimself with complacency over the rapid progress which the Gospel of\nJesus was making in moulding mankind towards a realization of His\nideals. Then came the cataclysm of 1914. The leading nations of\nEurope--all Christian except the Turks--plunged into the bloodiest war\nof history, and on the most petty of pretexts--the political\nadministration of an insignificant Balkan state. The Gospel of Jesus, as\nan efficient force restraining these nations from war, was as though it\nhad never existed. In the communications between England, France, Russia\nand Germany, preliminary to the war and ostensibly seeking to avert war,\ndid any one statesman urge the argument that the law of Jesus forbade\nthis war? Not a single syllable, and, for the sufficient reason, that\neach one knew that it would fall on deaf ears and would be laughed at as\n\"old women's talk.\" So far as the efficiency of such arguments was\nconcerned, they might as well have been used between the Persians and\nEgyptians before Jesus was born.\n\nThen, when war broke out, came the supreme irony of each nation crowding\nits churches to pray for the assistance of the meek and gentle Jesus in\nslaughtering its enemies. Later, the victorious nations crowded their\nchurches to thank Jesus that He had made them successful in their\nhellish business.\n\nThere are some who can quiet their consciences by shifting the\nresponsibility for the incalculable misery of this brutal, barbarous\nconflict from the sins and evil ambitions of man to the shoulders of the\nAlmighty. With those holding this (to the writer) blasphemous doctrine,\nargument is useless. But to the ordinary, sincere and candid follower of\nJesus, does not the occurrence of this war give occasion to pause and\nthink--as it were, to take an account of his stock-in-trade? Why did the\nmighty forces of Christianity fail to work with any practical effect at\nthis, their supreme test--the prevention of war? What promise has the\nfuture to prevent the recurrence of such evils? How far has modern\nChristianity kept undefiled the pure religion of the Great Nazarene?\n\nThese are all questions demanding at this time the serious consideration\nof every thinking man, professed Christian or not.\n\n\nTHE ETERNAL CONFLICT\n\nThe Gospel of Jesus proclaimed the highest ethical ideal that had yet\nappeared on earth. But, as a working rule-of-conduct for practical,\neveryday life, it contained an essential weakness. With its acceptance\nby one nation after another, it became an efficient force, working with\nother forces in the evolution of mankind. But here it came in direct\nconflict with the forces of nature, which, working through countless\nages, had made man what he then was. The ultimate goal of man's\nstruggles and aspirations under the Gospel of Jesus was self-abnegation,\nnon-resistance, the protection of the weak by the strong. The ultimate\ngoal of nature's forces was self-assertion, battle, the crushing out of\nthe weak by the strong. The struggle for existence and the survival of\nthe fittest had no place in their operation for the doctrines of\n\"turning the other cheek,\" and \"loving thy neighbor as thyself.\" The two\nwere, and always will be, as incompatible as fire and water.\n\nWhen the Germans, some fifty years ago, began dreaming of, and planning\nfor, a world empire, some of their philosophers clearly recognized, and\nopenly proclaimed, the essential antipathy between the forces of\nChristianity, working towards Jesus' ideal, and the forces of nature,\nworking towards the survival of the fittest. In order to realize her\ndream, it was necessary for Germany to treat the Sermon on the Mount as\nthe piping of some \"idle singer of an empty day.\"\n\nOn the assumption that the \"manifest destiny\" of the Germans was to be\nworld-conquerors, these philosophers argued, with unassailable logic,\nthat the nation had made a vital mistake in abandoning the heathen gods\nfor the Jesus of Christianity. World-conquest demands of its aspirant\nmerciless severity, even to the enslavement or annihilation of any\nunoffending people, which the \"necessity of war\" considers to be\nimpeding its progress. In so far as the individual imbibes, and is\naffected by, the ideals of Jesus, just so far is his efficiency as a\nunit of the conquering nation impaired. World-conquerors can tolerate\nno \"conscientious objectors\" in their ranks. Logically their gods should\nbe the gods of the old Valhalla, Valor, Glory, Victory. Their priests\nshould preach war and hate, not peace and love.\n\nWith a courage and consistency that left nothing unsaid, these German\nwriters tore in twain the veil of hypocrisy with which Christian nations\ncover up their wars, and their schemes of colonization, benevolent\nassimilation, etc. They showed forth the naked truth that Jesus' ideal\nand nature's goal for man are the antipodes of each other, at least as\nregards different nations struggling with each other for supreme power.\nIn other words, the forces of Christianity are working in one direction,\nand the forces of nature in another.\n\nAs with the Nation, so with the Individual.\n\nJesus (stating His ideal standard, it must be remembered) says: \"Go and\nsell that thou hast and give to the poor\" (Matt. XIX:21).\n\nNature says: Not so. If you had done this in the beginning, you would\nnow have nothing with which to help the poor. If you do it now, you will\nsimply be adding yourself and your family to increase the number of the\npoor.\n\nJesus says: \"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither\nfor the body, what ye shall put on\" (Luke XII:22).\n\nNature says: Take thought for the morrow and provide for the future of\nyourself and your family; practice economy, frugality, thrift; see to it\nthat the contingency of sickness, or the coming of old age, does not\nbring you and those dependent on you into the ranks of the poor, seeking\naid from others.\n\nThe contrast between the two goals is as sharply defined in the case of\nthe individual as in the case of the nation.\n\nFrom this it does not follow that nature's forces do not make for\naltruism. As the family, the tribe or clan, the race, and the nation are\nsuccessively evolved, the scope of self-interest widens and the means\nnecessary to attain its ends become less individualistic and more\nhumanitarian. As Fagin impresses on Noah Claypole, even in a band of\nthieves, the number one of Noah must also include the number one of the\nother members of the gang. In a modern community, whether Christian or\nheathen, the successful business or professional man must necessarily\npractice, to a greater or less degree, the same virtues inculcated by\nJesus; otherwise he makes himself an outcast--an Ishmaelite--against\nwhom every man's hand is turned.\n\n\"Honesty is the best policy\" of the utilitarian leads to the same\nresults as the Gospel maxim \"to deal justly with all men.\"\n\nAlso the growth of a world-wide commerce, with the accompanying spread\nof international law, develops constantly a spirit of international\nmorality. A nation today, planning a war, must look beyond the question\nof how its course will affect the self-interest of other nations. If it\nhas wisdom in its councils, it must also reckon with this spirit of\ninternational morality. If its cause be too palpably unjust, or the\nmeans it adopts to secure victory be too barbarous, it may shock this\ninternational morality, and bring upon itself unexpected enemies, who\nmay balk its best laid plans. The possibility of such contingencies\narising will have far more weight than any argument based on the\nteaching of Jesus.\n\n\nTHE NECESSITY OF COMPROMISE\n\nIn Physics a body acted on by two divergent forces takes a course which\nis the resultant of (a compromise between) the two different forces. So,\nif Christianity is to survive as an efficient force in man's evolution,\ncompromises must be made between the ideals of Jesus and the natural\nforces expressed in the terms of the struggle for existence and the\nsurvival of the fittest. It is possible that the day may come, when all\nnations of our planet may be converted, to put into practical operation\nin international affairs the ideals of Jesus. But the experience of the\nworld during 1914 shows that little, if any, progress has been made in\nthat direction since the Crucifixion. Suppose the Christian nations of\nEurope and America should announce today the doctrine of non-resistance,\ndismantle their fleets and dismiss their armies, how long would it be\nbefore the Moslems, or the \"yellow hordes\" of Asia, would enslave them\nand exterminate all Christian religion and civilization? Fortunately,\nsuch a result is unthinkable, and the Christian nations will, until some\nunknown time in the future, continue their compromise with Jesus'\nideals. The unspeakable Turk will continue to understand that, if he\nmassacres some Christian villages, the other cheek will not be turned to\nhim, but, on the contrary, a righteous retribution of bayonet and shell\nwill be meted out to him.\n\nA superficial glance at history illustrates the necessity of national\ncompromise.\n\nIf Moses had preached, and the Jews had put in practice, the doctrine of\nnon-resistance, they would soon have been exterminated by their\nPhilistine neighbors, and the Jesus that was would never have been.\n\nIf the tribes of the northern barbarians in the first thousand years of\nour era had put into practical effect the Sermon on the Mount, as soon\nas they accepted Christianity, there would have been no Anglo-Saxon\nEngland and United States, as they are today.\n\nIf Ferdinand and Isabella had not relied on their earthly weapons, Spain\nwould probably have been Moslem to this day.\n\nIf the Christian powers had not warred against the Turks in the\nsixteenth century, the greater part of Europe would have bowed the knee\nto Mahomet, and the Mosque would have superseded the Church as the\nauthorized place of worship.\n\nIf our colonial ancestors had obeyed the injunction, \"Render to C\u00e6sar\nthe things that are C\u00e6sar's,\" there would have been no American\nRevolution.\n\nIf the \"conscientious objectors\" had swayed the councils of the North in\n1861, we would now have a divided country, with slavery firmly\nestablished in one-half of it.\n\nAs with the nation, so with the individual, a compromise between Jesus'\nideals and the forces of nature is a necessity, at least until evolution\nhas produced some fundamental change in human nature.\n\nIt is related that when the mother and brethren of Jesus sought to speak\nwith Him, He repudiated their special claims of relationship on Him, and\nsaid: \"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven,\nthe same is my brother, and sister and mother\" (Matt. XII:50; Mark\nIII:31; Luke VIII:19).\n\nIn another place He says: \"He that loveth father or mother more than me\nis not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is\nnot worthy of me\" (Matt. X:37).\n\n\"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,\nand children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he\ncannot be my disciple\" (Luke XIV:26).\n\n\"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or\nfather, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake,\nshall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life\" (Matt.\nXIX:29).\n\n\"And He said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first\nto go and bury my father.\n\n\"Jesus said unto him, let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and\npreach the kingdom of God\" (Luke IX:59, 60).\n\nNow, no sane man would advocate that doctrines such as these should be\nput into general, practical operation under the present constitution of\nhuman nature. Their practice would make of man a selfish ascetic, would\ndisintegrate the family into its individual units, like animals when the\nbreeding season is past, would discourage human progress and\ndevelopment, and would eventually lead to the degradation or extinction\nof any society which attempted to consistently enforce them. Of course\nthe individual man or woman may abjure family ties altogether, without\nserious loss to the community and even perhaps with some gain, just as\nthe drones have a function to perform in a community of bees. But the\nuniversal adoption of this practice by a human community would mean its\nspeedy death. With those who would regard this as a desirable outcome of\nJesus' teachings, we have no argument.\n\nThere is, however, no danger of such a condition of affairs coming to\npass. For untold ages before these utterances of Jesus, nature had been\ndeveloping the family affections in man. It had made the family the\nfundamental unit of the tribe, the clan, the race, the nation. These\nfamily affections, so planted by nature in man, must, in society as a\nwhole, override the ethical idea of a general philanthropy, as embodied\nin these utterances of Jesus. The normal man has always, and does now,\nrank the duties to his family as paramount over those of general\nphilanthropy.\n\nMan will continue to marry and have children in the future, as he has in\nthe past. He will continue to regard his obligations to his family as\nsuperior and prior to those he owes to mankind in general. He will feel\nwithin himself the urge, not merely to satisfy the need of the day, but\nalso to provide for the future. He will look forward to the education\nand outfitting of his children. He will guard against the contingencies\nof sickness and the probabilities of old age coming upon himself and\nthose dependent on him. He will engage with all his energy in the\nstruggle with his fellow men for the acquisition of property. He will\npractice industry, thrift and economy, and take every fair means to push\nhis own business at the expense of his competitors.\n\nBut in all this, even allowing that he has reasonably practiced the\nvirtues of generosity, charity and philanthropy, there is no disguising\nthe plain, naked truth that is all the time making compromises with the\nideals of Jesus. His actions simply do not square with the maxims: Give\nall thy goods to the poor; take no thought for the morrow; every one who\ndoes the will of God is the same to you as your brother and sister and\nmother; resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right\ncheek, turn to him the other also; whosoever shall compel thee to go a\nmile, go with him twain; give to every man that asketh of thee, and of\nhim that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; love your enemies,\nbless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you; lay not up for\nyourselves treasures upon earth; take no thought, saying, What shall we\neat? Or, What shall we drink? Or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? He\nthat loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.\n\nIt is difficult to conceive how, at the present stage of man's\nevolution, any community of considerable size, even if we assume all\nexternal hostile interference eliminated, could put these ideals into\npractical effect without disaster. As we know man, he has become what he\nis only through strife and contest, through the survival of the strong,\nthe industrious, the provident over the weak, the lazy, the improvident.\nIf the struggle for existence is eliminated, is there not every reason\nto expect that progress will be arrested, and the nation's civilization\nwill decay and finally disappear, as has been the case so many times in\nthe past history of the world? The desire for the acquisition of private\nproperty and the lust for power have been the two dominant motives\nimpelling men to raise themselves from a stage of barbarism to a stage\nof civilization. What motives can be substituted for those that will\nhave the same compelling, driving force? It is only by long centuries of\nhard fighting with material weapons that the powers of good have so far\nsubdued the powers of evil as to establish our present standard of\nhumanitarianism. But if the good are to be confined to the weapon of\nmoral suasion, how long will it be until the powers of evil are in full\ncontrol?\n\nBut, further, even if we assume that all evil-doers are converted from\nthe error of their ways, the economic problem for a community working\nunder these ideals seems insoluble. Even under the grinding necessities\nof the struggle for existence, the tendency of human populations to\nincrease beyond their means of subsistence is an indisputable fact, as\nsoon as they develop a civilization where peace and security of private\nproperty are measurably assured, and especially where manufacturing\ncenters with large industrial populations are established. The many\nancient civilizations that have arisen, flourished and decayed attest\nthe truth of this fact. In the seventeenth century England was\nconfronted with the problem of inadequate means of subsistence, and met\nit by spreading over the whole globe. What the history of the English\npeople would have been if they had been confined to their native island,\nwould afford an interesting subject for abstract philosophical\nspeculation. Thus far, the vast undeveloped territories of the United\nStates have furnished an outlet for its surplus population. But the time\nmay not be far distant when the problem of subsistence may be a serious\none with us. In modern times, nearly all the great nations have been\nstruggling for the acquisition of new territories as an outlet for their\nexpanding populations. Germany's economic needs were undoubtedly one of\nthe strongest motives urging her onward in her fateful dream of world\nempire. France attempts to meet the difficulty by voluntary, individual\naction in limiting the birth rate. This remedy will always be resorted\nto in highly civilized nations, as the pressure of population on\nsubsistence becomes more severe. But the decrease of population means\nthe arrest of growth and progress in the national organism, and eventual\ndecadence.\n\nThus dark and uncertain is the economic outlook for nations where the\ncompetitive struggle for existence is in full sway, where the\nacquisition and accumulation of private property are fostered and\nencouraged, where thrift, industry and saving are ranked as cardinal\nvirtues, and where proper provision for oneself and one's family is even\nenforced by law against the indolent and shiftless. What must be the\neconomic future of a community from which these incentives and\nrestraints are banished, and where sympathy for the unfortunate and the\ncriminal, regardless of merit or desert, is to be the governing\nprinciple?\n\nIt follows, then, first, that the nation, in its international\nrelations, must compromise with the ideals of Jesus in order to preserve\nits national existence, and to safeguard Christianity against the\nattacks of its external foes; and second, that the individual, in his\ndaily life, must compromise with these ideals to preserve the well-being\nand continuity of the family and to ensure the progress of mankind in\nhappiness, morality and material prosperity.\n\n\nCOMPROMISE IS JUSTIFIABLE\n\nThe Crucifixion was but a few years old when those two old enemies whom\nJesus had fought so persistently--creeds and ceremonies--began to be\nactive among the early Christians. _Right theological thinking_ began to\nassert its supremacy over the _right practical living_, taught by Jesus\nas the first essential of His professed followers. The outside of the\ncup was being carefully polished up, although the inside might be\nunclean. Paul, who had never had any personal intercourse with Jesus,\nwas the protagonist of this retrograde movement. Zealous, energetic, a\nready writer and a subtile dialectician, his numerous epistles furnished\nan arsenal of weapons for all future controversial theologians. His\narrogance in defining the tenets of the rapidly growing Gentile Church\nwas not one whit abated by the fact that he had never been in personal\ncontact with Jesus, and that in his views he was opposed to those who\nhad been the most intimate associates of Jesus during his entire\nprophetic career. Quite early in his ministration, Paul has a bitter\nquarrel with Peter, James, Cephas, John (the pillars) and other\ndisciples of Jesus over some question of circumcision, and has no\nhesitation in telling Peter (the \"rock\" of the new Church) to his face\nthat \"he was to be blamed\" for his views (Galatians II:11 et seq.).\n\nIt is not too much to say that he took the fair, smiling child of\nreligion, as left by Jesus, and transformed it into a misshapen dwarf,\nwith twisted and contorted limbs, and upon its face a frown of almost\nmalevolent austerity.\n\nWhen right theological thinking became established as the primary\nessential of a Christian, and especially when Christianity acquired\ntemporal power, it was inevitable that there should be extracted from\nPaul's militant writings that most abominable doctrine of \"No compromise\nwith evil.\" In company with dogmatic distinctions of orthodoxy and\nheterodoxy, it has inflicted its full quota of misery and suffering upon\nthe human race. It formed the justification of the cruelties of the\nInquisition, the religious persecutions and wars of the Middle Ages, the\nconversion of savages by fire and sword, the extermination of so-called\nwitches, and the burning at the stake of countless advanced thinkers in\nscience and religion, and other so-called heretics.\n\nProbably the unrecorded suffering which the advocates of this doctrine\nhave inflicted in the domestic and social sphere would equal that which\nis written in political history. The possession of, and disposition to\nput into practical operation, this dogma presupposes sublime egoism,\ncoupled with a narrowness of mind easily running into extreme bigotry.\nFor the slightest study of history will show that the error and evil of\none age becomes the truth and good of a succeeding age. But the\nnon-compromiser ignores any consideration of that sort. If he has\ndecided that this and that are evil, they must necessarily be evil\nwithout argument or appeal. He is the legitimate descendant of the old\ninquisitors, and, if he had the temporal power, would today enforce his\nideas as ruthlessly throughout the nation as they did in the Middle\nAges. Confined to the narrower limits of the domestic and social circle,\nhe plays the autocrat so far as he can. Without sympathy or toleration\nfor differing opinions and tastes, as husband, father, priest, officer,\nor citizen, the non-compromiser seeks to fit every one to his own\n_narrow_ Procrustean bed.\n\nClosely allied to the non-compromisers are the sacro-sancts, or those\nwho would be holier than Jesus.\n\nThis class is well illustrated in an incident taken from a recent novel.\nThe heroine consults her married sister about the heroine's contemplated\nmarriage with a man who has divorced his wife on the ground of her\nadultery. The sister declares that such a marriage would be no better\nthan prostitution. \"But he is legally divorced\" says the heroine. \"Yes,\naccording to man's law, but not according to God's law,\" says the\nsister. Now, considering that divorce was permitted under God's law, as\nrecorded in the Old Testament, that Matthew twice clearly and explicitly\nstates that Jesus sanctioned divorce on the ground of adultery, and that\nJohn mentions no condemnation of divorce by Jesus, it would seem that\nthere was at least a fair doubt as to whether the heroine's proposed\nmarriage was contrary to God's law. But the sister, like other\nsacro-sancts and non-compromisers, arrogates to herself infallibility in\ninterpreting the divine will, and will not admit argument as to her\npossible inaccuracy.\n\nOther examples are those who would fear to contaminate their holiness by\nfollowing their Master's example in eating and associating with\npublicans and sinners (Matt. IX:10); who would shudder at being anointed\nby a prostitute (Luke VII:37); who would think the Sabbath desecrated by\npleasant walks in the fields, or by feasting and joyous meetings with\none's friends (Matt. XII:1; Luke XIV:1), and who in general insist on\nthe observance of religious rites and symbols, similar to those which\nJesus condemned in the Pharisees.\n\nOne of the XXXIX Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church takes\na slap at these sacro-sancts (Book of Common Prayers, Article\nXIV). It condemns, as marks of \"arrogancy and impiety,\" works of\nsupererogation--that is, works over and above God's commandments.\nUndoubtedly the meaning here is, not to condemn excess in acts of mercy\nand charity, but excess in the same acts of ceremonial worship which\nJesus condemned in the Pharisees: Long prayers, \"standing in the\nsynagogues\" (churches), instead of in their \"closet\"; public fasting\nwith \"a sad countenance,\" so that they \"disfigure their faces,\" instead\nof anointing their heads and washing their faces \"that they appear not\nunto men to fast,\" making \"broad their phylacteries\" and giving\nostentatiously their \"tithe of mint and anise and cummin\" (Matt. VI:1-7,\n16, 17, 18; XXIII:4-7, 23).\n\nThe dogma of non-compromise finds no support in the teaching and\npractice of Jesus. He pictured the highest ideals for mankind. But He\nwas no bigot in demanding that fallible human beings should live up to\nthese ideals on pain of damnation. With His wonderful tolerance and\nbroadminded sympathy, He recognized that the happiness and progress of\nthe human race, in its present state of evolution, necessitated certain\ncompromises with evil. \"As between two evils, choose the less,\" would be\nmuch nearer His position than \"no compromise with evil.\" A short study\nof some of the episodes of His life will place this beyond dispute.\n\nJesus undoubtedly considered that riches were an evil (Matt. XIX:23, 24;\nXIII:22; Mark X:23, 24; Luke XVIII:24, 25). He knows the \"deceitfulness\"\nof riches, and that the temptations attending the possession of wealth\ndo not ordinarily make for righteousness. He advises that one should lay\nup treasure in heaven rather than on earth (Matt. VI:19, 20; Luke\nXII:33).\n\nRiches, then, being an evil, the non-compromiser should logically regard\nthe rich man as a persistent evil-doer. He should constantly denounce\nhis evil ways, as those of any other malefactor. He should refuse him\nhis public association and friendship, since thereby he would be gilding\nhis misconduct with the gold of his own sanctity. If a priest, he should\ncharge his congregation to abstain from those habits of thrift and\neconomy which will result in bringing upon them this evil of wealth.\n\nBut Jesus was too sane and broad-minded not to see that the happiness of\nmankind demanded a compromise with this evil. While warning against the\ntemptations of riches, He preached poverty, not as a necessity to\nsalvation, but as an ideal, to be attained and practiced by but a few.\n\nThus, in the case of the young man with \"great possessions,\" Jesus,\naccording to Matthew prefaces His counsel to sell his goods and give to\nthe poor with the significant condition, \"if thou wilt be perfect\"\n(Matt. XIX:21). To the same effect are the accounts of Mark and Luke.\n\"One thing thou lackest,\" viz., in order to be perfect (Mark X:21; Luke\nXVIII:22). Evidently Jesus took the concrete case of the young man to\nimpress on His hearers one of His ideals--the high standard He set for\nthose who aspired to be His immediate followers and the ministers of His\nWord. In His instructions to the twelve and the seventy, He laid down\nrules of conduct which practically eliminated the acquisition or\npossession of wealth (Matt. X:2, 9, 10; Mark VI:8, 9; Luke IX: 3; X:4).\nBut He set no such severe standard for the rank and file of His\nfollowers, nor did He withhold His favor and countenance from the\npossessors of riches, as though they were evil doers.\n\nNearly all the persons named in the Gospels as intimate friends and\nassociates of Jesus (outside of the apostles) were, apparently, more or\nless prominent, and belonged at least to the well-to-do class. Joseph of\nArimath\u00e6a, a disciple of Jesus, and one \"waiting for the Kingdom of\nGod,\" and who placed His body in the sepulchre, was a rich man (Matt.\nXXVII:57; Luke XXIII:50, 51). Nicodemus, who assisted Joseph in the\nburial, brought a hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes indicating\nthat he was not a poor man (John XIX:39). According to John he was the\nman who came to Jesus by night and was a \"ruler\" of the Jews (John\nIII:1, 2; VII:50). Lazarus, whom Jesus \"loved\" and with whose family He\nwas very intimate (John XI:5; Luke X:38), could not have been a poor\nman, since his sister anointed Jesus with an ointment \"very precious\"\nand worth more than three hundred pence (Mark XIV:3, 4, 5).\n\nOn one occasion Jesus invites Himself to visit in the house of\nZacchaeus, who was \"chief among the publicans,\" rich, and a \"sinner\"\n(Luke XIX:1-7). Levi, the publican, gives a \"great feast\" for Jesus,\nwhich He approves by His presence (Luke V:29). On another occasion He\ngoes to the house of one of the \"chief Pharisees\" to eat bread on the\nSabbath day (Luke XIV:1).\n\nSeveral times He commends the qualities of thrift and economy (Matt.\nXXV:21, 23; Luke XII:42-44; Matt. XXV:3, 4; XXIV:45, 46; Luke XIX:17,\n19). He constantly extols charity--the generous giving to the poor--as\none of the chief virtues, but the practice of this virtue on a\nconsiderable scale necessarily implies the prior accumulation of riches.\n\nThe evidence of the four Gospels proves that Jesus, without hesitation,\ncompromised with the evil of riches. He praised voluntary poverty as an\nideal for those who were supposing themselves to be already perfect,\nand, perhaps, demanded it of His apostles and those who assumed to be\nthe ministers of His Word. But He imposed no such hard and fast rule for\nthe rank and file of His followers. He did not go about fanatically\ndenouncing the rich men as evil-doers and malefactors. On the contrary,\nHe made them His friends, singled them out for special marks of His\nfavor and regard, though constantly urging on them the deceitfulness of\nriches and the necessity of generous giving to the poor. His friendship\nfor Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was so great that in her case He even\ncondoned the use of the precious ointment for a purpose which He must\nhave regarded as superfluous, instead of its being given to the poor\n(Matt. XXVI:6; Mark XIV:3; John XII:3).\n\nOther instances illustrate the readiness of Jesus to compromise with\nevil--to choose the less of two evils--when the conditions of practical\nhuman life demanded it. A notable instance of this was in the matter of\npaying tribute to the Romans. Undoubtedly Jesus, like all the other\nJews, regarded the imposition on them of Roman sovereignty as an\ninjustice--as a very great evil. But, under existing conditions,\nresistance to the Roman power was hopeless. A refusal to pay tribute by\nthe Jews would have brought on them imprisonment, death and countless\nsufferings, and, if persisted in, would have resulted in the enslavement\nor extermination of the race. In putting to Jesus the question: \"Is it\nlawful to give tribute unto C\u00e6sar or not?\" the Pharisees thought they\nhad framed a dilemma from which He could not escape. If He had been a\nfanatical non-compromiser, He could only have answered the question in\nthe negative. The Pharisees would then have denounced Him to the Romans,\nand thereby compassed His immediate death before His mission was\ncompleted.\n\nHis answer, \"Render therefore unto C\u00e6sar the things which are C\u00e6sar's,\nand unto God the things that are God's\"--is pregnant with meaning to all\nreligious bigots and fanatics if they could only open their minds to its\nsignificance. This earth is not a heaven, and cannot be made one so long\nas human beings are fallible and imperfect. Concessions and compromises\nmust be constantly made between the material necessities of the body and\nthe ethical ideals of the spirit. The economic ideal of the \"greatest\ngood to the greatest number\" can no more be ignored by the theologian of\ntoday in formulating rules of conduct for humanity, than it was by Jesus\nin His time. However wrong and unjust in theory it was for the Jews to\nbe subject to an alien race, still in practice the Roman rule was\nreasonably mild and humane. As between resistance and obedience to this\nrule, the latter was much the less evil. Consequently, Jesus wisely and\nsanely compromised with this evil and both paid tribute Himself (Matt.\nXVII:24-27), and advised His disciples to do likewise (Matt. XXII:21;\nMark XII:17; Luke XX:25).\n\nAgain, carrying out the same idea of compromising with the existing\nevils of government, Jesus commands His disciples to \"observe and do\"\nwhatsoever is bidden by the scribes and Pharisees, who \"sit in Moses'\nseat,\" at the same time warning them not to imitate or follow the\nPharisees' \"works\" (Matt. XXIII:2, 3).\n\nUndoubtedly Jesus considered it an evil \"to set a man at variance\nagainst his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the\ndaughter-in-law against her mother-in-law\" (Matt. X:35). He could\nforesee that this evil would result from the preaching of His Gospel.\nBut better this evil, even, if it sent a \"sword\" on earth, than the\ngreater evil that His Gospel should not be preached.\n\nUnchastity in a woman is surely a most grievous evil. To the\nnon-compromiser, the \"scarlet woman\" is a symbol of the lowest depth of\nvice, and no condemnation is too severe for her. But, on two occasions,\nJesus dismissed the erring woman with His forgiveness (John VIII:11;\nLuke VII:47).\n\nIn fact, the two utterances of Jesus--\"he that is without sin among you,\nlet him first cast a stone at her\" (John VIII:7), and \"why beholdest\nthou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam\nthat is in thine own eye\" (Matt. VII:2)--cut at the very root of the\nnon-compromiser's position. For, in carrying on his crusade against his\npet evil-doers, it would be fatal to be obliged to stop to answer\nobjections that he may not be infallible in deciding what is evil, and\nthat he may himself have habits considered by others as evil as the one\nhe is denouncing. For instance, many a prominent non-compromiser among\nthe clergy is living in comparative ease, if not luxury. When he reads\nthe standard of living set by Jesus for the ministers of His Word (Matt.\nX:9; Mark VI:8; Luke IX:3; X:4; XXII:35), he must admit that he is every\nday compromising with the ideals of Jesus--with the evil of riches.\n\nCompromise is the rule of human life. Each individual, as he tries to\nfollow the Socratic advice, \"know thyself,\" finds that most of his\nactions are a compromise between his good impulses and his evil\nimpulses. Few men are a Dr. Jekyll during the day and a Mr. Hyde during\nthe night. Most men are partly Jekyls and partly Hydes all the time. As\nthe individual makes his way in business and society, he learns more and\nmore every day, if he has common sense, the wisdom and advisability of\ncompromise. He that is always bent on \"having his own way\" will usually\nfind that his way does not go far, and results in unhappiness for\nhimself and others. Happy marriages are founded on a compromise of\nindividual tastes, habits and opinions. Parents win and retain the\naffection of their children, not by imposing on them their own\ninflexible laws of right and wrong, but by modifying these laws to meet\nthe different tastes, habits and opinions of the children. Success in\nbusiness, in law, in politics, is usually associated with the faculty of\nmaking reasonable compromises. The wisest legislation is usually a\ncompromise between conflicting interests and opinions.\n\nIt is not too much to say that compromise is the corner stone of every\nmodern democratic society. It is a necessary consequence of the \"rule of\nthe majority,\" since the majority of today may be the minority of\ntomorrow. To find a society of his taste, the non-compromiser should\nseek some negro tribe in darkest Africa, where the witch-doctors permit\nno deviations from the prescribed theological cult. Or, in matters\npolitical, he might find much to admire in the administrative system of\nLouis the XIVth, with his famous aphorism, \"L'Etat, C'est Moi.\"\n\nIn international affairs every treaty of peace, unless its terms are\ndictated by a strong power to a weak one, is a compromise between the\nopposing views of right and wrong held by the parties. Logically, the\nnon-compromiser should be generally opposed to treaties, as involving\nnecessarily some sacrifice of his principles of right to the demands of\nthe other party. In the period from 1844 to 1846, we narrowly escaped\nwar with England in the dispute over the boundary between ourselves and\nCanada, because a strong Jingo, non-compromising party started the\npopular cry of \"Fifty-Four Forty or Fight.\" This class of thinkers would\nundoubtedly have opposed the celebrated compromises of Henry Clay,\nwhich, whatever might have been said against them at the time, have, in\nthe light of history, the incalculable merit of having postponed the\ninevitable conflict between the North and the South, until the former\nhad so grown in population and resources that it could preserve the\nunity of the nation. Considering the hard, and sometimes doubtful\nstruggle, which the North went through in winning victory in the\nsixties, there can be little doubt that the result would have been two\ndivided nations if the issues between the two sections had been\nsubmitted to the arbitrament of arms in 1820, in 1832, or even in 1850.\n\nAs the intolerance of the non-compromisers will lead some of them to\noppose treaties of peace, so the same quality in others will lead them\nto make nuisances of themselves in war.\n\nDuring the Great War, the nations, especially England and the United\nStates, had considerable trouble with the \"conscientious objector,\" who\nis really a non-compromiser under a different name. Supposing him to be\nhonest in his opinions (as some of them were), the logic of his position\nwas unanswerable from the view-point of the non-compromiser. War is\nunquestionably a great evil, and most obnoxious to the doctrines of the\nSermon on the Mount. If there is to be no compromise with evil, then a\nChristian magistrate has no warrant to compel the conscientious objector\nto go out and slaughter, or give his help, directly or indirectly,\ntowards the slaughter of his fellow Christians.\n\nThe true answer to this argument is, of course, obvious, although the\nmagistrates, themselves infected with this pernicious, non-compromise\ndoctrine, did not always make it.\n\nIn this fallible, imperfect human life, it is often necessary to\ncompromise with evil--that is, as between two evils, to choose the less.\nJesus both preached and practiced the doctrine of choosing the less\nevil, even in the extreme case of war. For He urged the spreading of His\nGospel, although He foresaw that it would divide father from son and\nbring \"fire\" and a \"sword\" upon earth (Matt. X:34; Mark XIII:8; Luke\nXII:49). Now, in the case of this war, the vast majority of the nation\nhas decided that it is a less evil to go to war than to be enslaved by\nGermany. So, war it is to be. But it is unjust--an evil of the greatest\nmagnitude--that a few individuals should reap all the benefits of\npreserving the nation from German slavery, without bearing the\ncorresponding burdens. Consequently, the conscientious objectors must\neither submit to the decision of the majority or seek some other\ncountry, following the example of the Puritans, Huguenots and other\n\"conscientious objectors\" of past times.\n\nIt is apparent that if the door is once opened to allow people to shirk\nthe civil duties imposed upon them by the society in which they live,\nthe exemption cannot be limited to the case of war alone on the ground\nof their conscientious convictions. In the Supreme Court records\nof one of our States (possibly in several), there will be found\na case where a man and woman (apparently respectable and generally\nlaw-abiding citizens) suffered a criminal conviction, because they had\n\"conscientious objections\" to legalizing their union by a conventional\nmarriage ceremony. It is easy to imagine a man having conscientious\nobjections to jury duty--the condemning men to death or imprisonment, or\nthe transferring of property from one to another on account of the\n\"technicalities\" of the law. Or, why should a man not have conscientious\nobjections to paying his taxes if they are to be used, in part at least,\nfor a purpose which he considers evil? Evidently the field for evasion\nis a large one, and the only protection for society is to rigidly insist\nthat the \"conscientious objector,\" whether the case in hand be war or\nsomething else, either submit himself to the will of the majority or\nseek some other country more congenial to his peculiar ideas.\n\nAt the risk of repetition, we will collect again some of the utterances\nof Jesus which seem irreconcilable with the narrow, intolerant ideas of\nthe non-compromisers and the sacro-sancts: Judge not, that ye be not\njudged; he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at\nher; how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull the mote out of thine\neye, and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye; blessed are the merciful,\nfor they shall obtain mercy; blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall\nbe called the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble\nhimself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of\nheaven; joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than\nover ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance; on these\ntwo commandments hang all the law and the prophets, viz., Love the Lord\nthy God with all thy heart, soul and mind, and love thy neighbor as\nthyself.\n\n\nHYPOCRISY OR TRUTH\n\nHypocrisy did not die with the Pharisees. To an observer of modern life,\nit might seem as if it has as rank and luxuriant growth today as in the\ntime of Jesus. The modern Christian must apparently keep up the\nhypocrisy that he is always following Jesus, when, as a matter of fact,\nhe is every day making compromises with Jesus' ideals, in some instances\ndeviating widely from His teachings, and, in others, going diametrically\nagainst them. The question is, if, in these points of divergence, it is\nnot better to speak the plain truth than to indulge in the hypocrisy of\n\"following Jesus.\" For instance, take the case of divorce laws. Jesus\nexplicitly condemned all divorces, except possibly on the ground of\nadultery. His language is so definite, repeated in all three of the\nSynoptics, that no quibbling over words or casuistry of logic can escape\nthe result. Consequently, when a Christian state authorizes divorce for\ndesertion, cruelty, drunkenness, etc., it is not following Jesus, but\ngoing directly contrary to His laws. In this matter the Roman Catholics\nare the orthodox Christians and most of the Protestants are heterodox.\n\nThe point here made has nothing to do with the expediency of these\ndivorce laws. The conditions of human life have so vastly changed--it is\nquite possible that Jesus, speaking today, might lay down much less\nstringent rules on this subject than He did two thousand years ago. The\nimportant fact is that we have here an undeniable instance of\nChristians, not only making a compromise with the acknowledged evil of\ndivorce, but also completely ignoring the views of Jesus in making the\ncompromise. Those who condone, or tacitly approve, these divorce laws\n(as do the great majority of the Protestants in the United States)\nshould certainly be slow, in the matter of other evils, to urge \"no\ncompromise with evil,\" or bring forward some utterances of Jesus as the\nfinal argument on the subject. Let them first consider the beam in their\nown eye.\n\nIt would probably surprise the professed follower of Jesus in present\ntimes to realize in just how many matters he is not, in fact, following\nJesus. It may be well to enumerate a few of these important matters.\nThis is not done in a spirit of criticizing the weakness and\nshortcomings of Christians, but because some of the questions involved\nvitally affect the present and future welfare of society. In the\ndiscussion of these questions the name and authority of Jesus are\nfrequently invoked, and very justly so. For, even those who do not\nconcede His parentage by the Holy Ghost, admire and revere Him as the\nGreatest Teacher. His word or example on one side of a question is not\nlightly to be disregarded. But, if it is found that, in some matters,\nthe followers of Jesus do compromise with, diverge from, or directly\ncontradict Jesus' teachings, then the ultimate query, becomes, not\nwhether Jesus said yes or no to the question in hand, but, conceding\nthat He said yes or no, Is there sufficient justification for departing\nfrom His teaching in this matter, as has been done in other important\nmatters? Without noticing individual short-comings, sins of omission,\netc., which may be left to the individual conscience and its God, we\nwill take up only questions of wide import, affecting the present and\nfuture welfare of societies and nations. Nor will we enter into the\nfield of theological disputation over conflicting or ambiguous texts,\nbut will cite no instance where Jesus has not made His position so clear\nthat there can be no dispute over it.\n\nThe following are instances where modern Christian communities\ncompromise with, diverge from, or go directly opposite to the teachings\nof Jesus.\n\n(a) Wars between two Christian nations where each invokes the assistance\nof Jesus in the slaughtering of its enemies, and the victor thanks Jesus\nfor its success in the blood-thirsty game.\n\n(b) The substitution of the first day of the week for the seventh, as\nthe Sabbath day.\n\n(c) Divorces (at least for any cause except adultery).\n\n(d) Public prayers and long prayers.\n\n(e) Public fasting.\n\n(f) Sunday Blue Laws.\n\n(g) Prohibition as against Temperance.\n\n(h) Creeds, articles of religion, pomp and ceremony in church services,\nand other observances, which Jesus included in the word \"sacrifice,\" as\nopposed to \"mercy.\"\n\n\n(a) WAR\n\nIt is unnecessary to waste words in proving that war (at least between\ntwo Christian nations) is utterly irreconcilable with the Sermon on the\nMount. But, as has been shown, it may, in any given case, be the less of\ntwo evils, and therefore, justifiable, as a compromise. As to a\ndefensive war against a Moslem, Oriental or other infidel invasion,\nwhich seeks to uproot the Christian faith and subjugate a Christian\nnation, Jesus has apparently given His sanction to such a war (Matt.\nX:34, 35, 36; Luke XII:51, 52, 53). It might, perhaps, even be argued\nthat this sanction covered an offensive war, the purpose of which was to\nestablish Christianity among an infidel people.\n\nBut, beyond this, some wars must be justifiable, as the less of two\nevils, under Jesus' sane practice of compromising with evil. If the\nindependence (the life) of a nation is attacked, there is no warrant in\nthe four Gospels for supposing that Jesus would advise a policy of\npassive non-resistance. Just as when the life of the individual, or the\nlife or honor of his mother, sister, or daughter are threatened by some\nbeast in human form, he is justified in resistance, although the taking\nof human life results. A standard of ethics countenancing such a\nsurrender of the primary instincts of self-preservation might be suited\nto a race of spineless invertebrates, but could never be accepted by\nhuman beings, who are the evolutionary product of countless ages of a\nstruggle for existence.\n\nBut, conceding that some wars may be justifiable, the general rule holds\ngood that wars are un-Christian. The exception must be established\nbeyond a reasonable doubt. As between two Christian nations, the\none attacked can usually plead self-defense in at least partial\njustification, but the aggressor must always have a difficult case to\nmaintain before the judgment seat of Jesus.\n\nLooking back over the wars of the United States, there are few that\nwould stand the acid test of Jesus' judgment.\n\nThe war of the Revolution was due, in the last analysis, to the fact\nthat there were a large number of prominent men in the colonies\ndetermined on independence at any cost. If war was a necessary means to\nattain that end, these leaders were for war, without shilly-shallying\nover the moral justification for the conflict. The men of that\ngeneration were rather fond of attitudinizing, and were prone to the use\nof high-sounding phrases like \"no taxation without representation,\"\n\"give me liberty or give me death,\" etc. The Declaration of Independence\nstarts out with one of those phrases--\"All men are created equal, and\nendowed with inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of\nHappiness.\" This was at that time such a palpable untruth and hypocrisy,\nthat one wonders if our forefathers had no sense of humor. Of course, to\nbe true, the sentence should have been added, \"except certain persons of\nAfrican descent, whom we hold and propose to hold as slaves.\"[56]\n\nStripping the grievances of the colonists of their heated and\ndeclamatory rhetoric, their real sufferings under the misrule of Great\nBritain were far less than those of the Jews under the Romans, when\nJesus said, \"Render unto C\u00e6sar the things that are C\u00e6sar's.\" Many of the\nforemost statesmen in England supported the justness of the colonists'\nclaims, and most of the obnoxious taxes were repealed before the\nDeclaration of Independence. With time and patience the difficulties\nbetween the two countries could probably have been adjusted without war,\nas was the case with Canada, except for the underlying desire of the\nAmericans for independence.\n\nTo avoid misunderstanding, it should be added, that, before the bar of\nNature--under the laws of the struggle for existence and survival of the\nfittest--the colonies were fully justified in taking up arms when they\ndid. The pigheaded obstinacy of George III in insisting on his\n\"prerogatives,\" and the blind stupidity of his ministers in urging\nmeasures of little value to England, but irritating to the colonies,\nwounding their pride and making them apprehensive of future, more\nserious encroachments on their liberties, furnished ample warrant for\nceasing longer to turn the other cheek.\n\nFurthermore, before Nature's forum, the plea that the end justifies the\nmeans, is always of controlling force. History proves that the\nindependence of the United States was sure to come sooner or later, and\nthat it was better for both countries and for the world that the two\nnations should be under separate governments, and each work out its own\ndestiny.\n\nThe war of 1812 was, before the bar of Jesus, without any excuse, and,\nlike the Crimean war, was futile of results. The main questions at issue\nbetween the United States and England, and about which the war started,\nwere not even mentioned in the final treaty of peace. The American\ngrievances were real enough, but a very moderate exercise of Christian\nforbearance on England's part would have avoided any necessity of war.\nThese grievances, bad as they were, had been endured by the United\nStates for some twelve years, and a delay of some two years more would\nhave brought a natural end to them with the fall of Napoleon. This war\nshould never have occurred between two Christian peoples, and is\nunjustified by any good results that followed from it.\n\nThe war with Mexico in 1848 was simply an aggressive, land-grabbing,\npoliticians' war, and will always be a blot on the Christianity of the\nUnited States. The lands of which Mexico was robbed were of course of\ngreat material value to the United States, but the less said about the\njustness of their acquisition the better.\n\nThe question of the Civil War is complicated by the moral issue of the\nabolition of slavery, underlying the political issue of the right of the\nSouth to secede, which was the ostensible cause of the war. Slavery in\nthe United States was an evil, both ethically and economically, and, as\nits abolition was a result of the war, that war is justifiable both in\nthe court of Jesus and in that of Nature. But that result was an\nincident of the war, and the North would never have taken up arms on the\nsimple issue of forcing the abolition of slavery on the South.\n\nOn the ostensible, political issue which started the war--the right of\nthe South to secede from the Union--there is room for much difference of\nopinion. Despite the technical and labored constitutional arguments of\nVon Holst and others, it is rather difficult to understand why, if the\nSouth believed that its happiness and prosperity were being imperiled by\na further continuance of its union with the North, it had not the same\nright to break that union in 1861 as the colonies had the right to break\ntheir union with England in 1776. At the outbreak of the war, there were\nmany in the North, beside Horace Greeley and Vallandingham, who thought\nit morally wrong to compel the South by force to remain in a union that\nhad become hateful to it.\n\nA great writer on American history (Sumner) has said that whenever some\ngeographical section of our country becomes saturated with the idea that\nits material interests are being sacrificed to the interests of other\nparts of the country, and it sees no hope of redress, it will begin to\ntalk secession. It was true of New England at the time of the Hartford\nConvention. It was true of the South in 1820, 1831 and 1860. It was true\nof the Pacific States shortly after the Civil War, when they feared that\nCongress would not pass their desired Chinese Exclusion Acts.\n\nIt would be difficult to justify the Spanish War of 1898, in the court\nof Jesus. It was mostly the work of the newspapers and politicians.\nNine-tenths of the people of the United States were ignorant of\nsuffering great grievances from Spain, until the Jingo journals\ndemonstrated the fact to them. It is safe to say that this war would\nnever have occurred if Spain had been a great naval power like Germany\nor Great Britain. The same assertion may be made of the war against\nMexico in 1848. In studying the Jingo spirit which encourages wars, it\nwill usually be found that the strength of this spirit varies in the\ninverse ratio to the supposed war-strength of the other party to the\nfight. Nations are much like school boys in this respect. It is quite\nprobable that the war of 1812 would not have been brought on, except\nfor the mistaken idea of Henry Clay and his hot-headed followers from\nthe West that the United States could easily overrun Canada, and dictate\npeace to England in Halifax.\n\nOur participation in the Great War of 1914 was forced upon us, and was\namply justifiable, both in the court of Jesus and in that of Nature.\nWhen Germany sunk our ships on the high seas, it struck at our\nindependence as a nation, as vitally as though it had invaded and seized\na part of our territory. On this issue we had waged war with England in\n1812, and with the Algerine pirates in 1815. To have yielded this point\nto Germany would have been the first step toward international slavery.\n\nBut the war itself was utterly unjustifiable. The fact that it could\noccur nearly 2,000 years after the death of Jesus, only illustrates how\nlittle actual progress the teachings of Jesus inculcating peace had made\nagainst the forces of nature urging nations into conflict with each\nother.\n\nTo the impartial student of our history, it must be apparent that the\nSermon on the Mount, so far as preventing wars, has been practically a\ndead letter. The condemnation of war has been superficial and\ninsincere--nothing better than simple hypocrisy. It has been a service\nof the lip and not of the heart. The outside of the cup has been kept\nclean with a great parade of noble humanitarian sentiments, but the\ninside has been full of corruption.\n\nExcept among some numerically small bodies like the Quakers and a few\nothers, there has never been any strong living, effective public\nsentiment in the United States condemning wars as unrighteous, save as a\nlast extremity. This is well illustrated by our two disputes with\nEngland over the Maine and Oregon boundaries. These boundary disputes\nwere most intricate and complicated, the evidence was uncertain and\nconflicting, no question of principle was involved, and they were\neminently matters to be settled by negotiation, mutual compromise, or\narbitration. But in each case the Jingo clamor for war spread over the\nwhole country. Polk's campaign cry in 1844 was, \"Fifty-Four Forty or\nFight.\" But there was no organized, effective opposition on the ground\nthat this war would be unrighteous and un-Christian. If England had been\nas weak as Mexico, or if Tyler and Polk had been \"fire-eaters,\" like\nAndrew Jackson, we would, beyond doubt, have had war in each case,\nalthough there could have been no justification for it in the court of\nJesus.\n\nEvery war, whether right or wrong, has been not merely condoned, but\nfully approved by the vast majority of the religious people of our\ncountry. Success in war has been the best stepping stone to the\nPresidency, as is shown by the instances of Jackson, Harrison, Taylor\nand Grant. There is no record of any Jingo statesman being punished by\nhis constituents for precipitating the United States into unnecessary\nand unrighteous wars, and the supreme hypocrisy of all is, that, in\nevery war, whether morally justifiable or not, the followers of Jesus\ncrowd the churches to pray for His assistance, and to thank Him for\nvictory when won, as though He were sanctioning these infractions of His\nSermon on the Mount.\n\nThe late President Roosevelt has expressed his views on our wars, and he\nmay certainly be taken as fairly representative of a large portion of\nthe American people. He was a devout Christian, but singularly free from\nhypocrisy. He was given to \"speakin' out in meetin',\" on occasions with\na frankness that was embarrassing to his followers, and even later to\nhimself.[57]\n\nIn his life of Thomas H. Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 261, he\nsays, in treating of this boundary dispute with Canada:\n\n\"The matter was sure to be decided in favor of the strongest; and, say\nwhat we will about the justice and right of the various claims, _the\nhonest truth_ is, that the comparative _might_ of the different nations,\nand not the comparative _righteousness_ of their several causes, was the\ndetermining factor in the settlement. Mexico lost her northern provinces\nby no law of right, but simply by the law of the longest sword--the same\nlaw that gave India to England.\"[58]\n\nOn page 262 he says: \"It would be untrue to say that Nations have not at\ntimes proved themselves capable of acting with great disinterestedness\nand generosity towards other peoples; but such conduct is not very\ncommon at the best, and although it often may be desirable, _it\ncertainly is not always so_. If the matter in dispute is of _great\nimportance_, and if there is a _doubt_ as to which side is right, then\nthe strongest party to the controversy is pretty sure to give itself the\nbenefit of that doubt; and international morality will have to take\ntremendous strides in advance before this ceases to be the case.\"[59]\n\nOn page 268 he says: \"No foot of soil to which we had any title[60] in\nthe Northwest should have been given up; we were the people who could\nuse it best, and _we ought to have taken it all_. The prize was well\nworth winning, and would warrant a good deal of risk being run.\"\n\nOn page 289, in speaking of the final compromise and settlement of the\nOregon boundary dispute, he says: \"Yet as there was no particular reason\nwhy we should show any generosity in our diplomatic dealings with\nEngland, it may well be questioned whether it would not have been better\nto have left things as they were until we could have taken all. Wars\nare, of course, as a rule to be avoided, but they are far better than\ncertain kinds of peace. Every war in which we have been engaged, except\nthe one with Mexico, has been justifiable in its origin, and each one,\nwithout any exception whatever, has left us better off, taking both\nmoral[61] and material considerations into account, than we should have\nbeen if we had not waged it.\"\n\nThese citations, reflecting, as they undoubtedly do, prevalent American\nsentiment in the past and present, establish the utter hypocrisy of any\nclaim that the Sermon on the Mount has had any practical, effective\npower in determining the actions of our nation concerning wars, whether\njustifiable or not.\n\n\n(b) SUNDAY AND THE SABBATH\n\nIt is uncertain just when Sunday (the first day of the week) began to be\ngenerally observed among Christians as a holy day. The early Gentile\nconverts were naturally averse to all Jewish rites and ceremonies,\nincluding circumcision, Sabbath-day observances, etc. It would seem\nthat, in St. Paul's time, more or less of them held the position that\nall days of the week were alike, and no one of them especially holy\n(Romans XIV:5, 6; Col. II:16, 17). But at least two or three centuries\nhad elapsed after Jesus' death, before Sunday was established as a day\nholy to the Lord, and began to have attributed to it the sanctity with\nwhich the Jews surrounded their Mosaic Sabbath.\n\nJesus never sanctioned the observance of the first day of the week as a\nholy day. No text can be cited from the Old Testament, or the four\nGospels, that gives even color of authority to this observance. Sunday\nis a purely human institution, established by the Christians of the\nfirst five centuries, to suit their own convenience, or satisfy their\nanti-Jewish prejudices. As a Biblical festival, it is no more sacred\nthan Monday or Tuesday, or any other day.\n\nThis matter is not commented on because of its practical importance,\nsince it would now be inadvisable to change our legal day of rest to\ncorrespond with the Biblical Sabbath. But it affords a fair illustration\nof the prevalent cant and hypocrisy of the day. How frequently do the\nmodern Pharisees denounce the man, who, for instance, goes fishing or\nhunting on Sunday, instead of going to church, as a contemner of Jesus,\na violator of God's holy laws, etc., when in fact they have not the\nslightest authority from Jesus to do so. Would it not be well for them\nto consider the beam in their own eye? On this point, the Seventh-day\nBaptists and others like them are the consistent followers of Jesus, and\nnot the Roman Catholics and the great bulk of the Protestants.\n\n\n(c) THE HYPOCRISY OF DIVORCE\n\nUnder the Mosaic law a husband, dissatisfied with his wife, could \"write\nher a bill of a divorcement\" if he had found \"some uncleanness in her\"\n(Deut. XXIV:1; Matt. XIX:7).\n\nAccording to Matthew, Jesus condemned divorce except for the cause of\n\"fornication\" (Matt. V:32; XIX:9).\n\nAccording to Mark and Luke, He condemned divorce for any cause (Mark\nX:11; Luke XVI:18).\n\nAll the States of our Union, except New York and South Carolina,\nauthorize divorce on other grounds than adultery. In New York divorces\nare granted only on the ground of adultery, and in South Carolina no\ndivorces are granted. (World's Almanac, 1920, pp. 369-371.)\n\nIn 1916, there were 1,040,778 marriages and 112,036 divorces in the\nUnited States, of which about 11 per cent were on the ground of\n\"unfaithful.\" (World's Almanac, 1920, pp. 151-152.)\n\nBut the marriages of the Roman Catholics, about 1-7 of our population\n(World's Almanac, p. 484), should fairly be excluded, since divorce is\npractically non-existent among them. This would leave 890,000 marriages\nto 112,000 divorces.\n\nThere was then, in 1916, something more than one divorce to every ten\nmarriages among our total population, or, excluding Roman Catholics,\nsomething more than one divorce to every eight marriages.\n\nIn the face of these figures, it must be conceded that this prohibition\nof Jesus has become practically a dead letter among the Protestant\nChristians of the United States.\n\nTo the innocent party to a divorce, little, if any, stigma attaches\neither in business, social or religious circles, and nothing but a\ntemporary condemnation is visited on the guilty party. The plain truth\nis, that divorce has become a matter of everyday life, regrettable but\nnot sinful, and that, on this point, the followers of Jesus (excepting\nthe Roman Catholics) have simply substituted their ideas of right and\nwrong for His.\n\nIt should be added again, to avoid misunderstanding, that it is not the\nintention hereby to condemn our present divorce laws. On the contrary,\nit is quite probable that, if Jesus were legislating for the complex\nsocieties of today, instead of for the comparatively simpler\ncivilization of His day, He would materially modify His stringent views\non divorce, in a sane concession to the weakness and frailty of human\nnature. Certainly, to one who has seen many ill-mated couples seeking\nrelief in the divorce courts, and subsequently making happy marriages,\nto the mutual benefit of themselves, their children, their friends and\nsociety in general, divorce laws cannot seem all evil. The children, if\nthere are any, are the main factor to be considered, and no conditions\nof life are likely to be much worse for them than to be brought up by\ntwo mutually unloving, unsympathetic parents, and, as usually happens,\nin an atmosphere of continual bickering and quarreling.\n\n\n(d) THE HYPOCRISY OF PRAYER\n\nThis subject has already been treated under Note 22, _supra_, page 23,\nand it has been shown that Jesus clearly condemned public prayers, long\nprayers and frequent prayers (Matt. VI: 5, 8).\n\nThe evils of the prayer-habit (as a public ceremony) are many and\nobvious.\n\n(1) It is a useless waste of time and energy that had better be expended\non works of mercy. God already knows what things we need, and will grant\nthem, if advisable, without prayer (Matt. VI:8). For instance, how much\ntime has been spent by the human race in praying for things which\nsubsequent events proved were, or would have been, injurious instead of\nbeneficial? How many there are, who, in looking back over their lives,\ncan see that the realization of one of their (at the time) dearest\nwishes turned out later to be the most unfortunate thing that ever\nhappened to them.\n\n(2) It encourages the formation of a low and unworthy conception of God\nas a being to be propitiated and placated, like the deities of barbarous\npeoples. Insensibly the idea grows that the more frequent and the more\nzealous the prayers, the more likely they are to be granted. An instance\nof this will be found in the custom started during the Great War of\nevery one on the streets and everywhere, praying exactly at noon for the\nsuccess of our armies. The idea underlying this was apparently that of\n\"a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together,\" although the\nlatter requirement was hardly fulfilled, since the prayers in New York\nwere several hours old before those in San Francisco were begun. Nothing\ncould be imagined much more inconsistent with Jesus' regulations on the\nsubject of prayer.\n\nFurthermore, the prayer-habit begets a sickening tone of servility in\nthe worshipper, coupled with the ascription to the Deity of an equally\nsickening love of adulation. In many prayer meetings the speakers seem\nto vie with each other in seeking terms of humility and self abasement\nfor themselves (miserable worms being rather a favorite) and the most\nexaggerated titles of honor for the Deity. One would think they were a\nlot of grovelling slaves, prostrating themselves before the throne of\nsome barbaric despot. Take the \"Te Deum,\" which is a prayer in the form\nof a hymn. Can it be supposed that the fulsome adulation with which it\nis filled can be pleasing to the God of the universe? And yet, why is it\nsung, except on that supposition? What respect would we have for an\nearthly father who delighted in having his children assemble every\nmorning, and chant their praises of his goodness, his excellence, his\npower, etc.? And yet should not the ideal of the heavenly Father be\nhigher than that of the earthly father?\n\n(3) The prayer-habit tends to emasculate the moral strength of its\ndevotees. It is much easier to pray to God for help and, so to speak,\nshift the responsibility on Him, than to work out one's own troubles by\none-self. There is an old saying--Pray, but with thy hand on the plough.\nToo much praying tends towards neglect of the plough, or, to use\nCromwell's phrase, the keeping one's powder dry.\n\n(4) Another evil is that it tends to encourage a self-righteousness on\nthe part of its devotees (Luke XVIII:11). When prayer is regarded as a\nduty, the sequel to a prayer-meeting is a feeling of satisfaction in\nduty well performed. God has not only been well pleased by a display of\nhumility on the part of His worshippers, but has also been intelligently\nadvised on a variety of subjects, about which He may have been in\nuncertainty.\n\nCompare the prayer meeting of today with one according to Jesus'\nprecepts. There would be no long prayers (Matt. XXIII:14; Luke XX:47).\nThe meeting would open with the Lord's Prayer. Then, as each one thought\nover his various sins of omission and commission, and repented of them,\nhe would arise and say, \"God be merciful to me, a sinner\" (Luke\nXVIII:13). The peace and silent meditation of such a gathering would\ntend to produce the humble and contrite heart, which is the offering\npleasing to God.\n\n(5) But the worst evil, as pointed out by Jesus, is that of substituting\na false standard of righteousness, words for acts, sacrifice for mercy\n(Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded as a duty and their performance\na meritorious act, their devotees are quite apt to become like the\nPharisees, who paid \"tithe of mint, anise and cummin,\" but neglected\n\"judgment, mercy and faith\" (Matt. XXIII:23).\n\nThe average, easy-going Christian can without difficulty square his\naccount with God through numerous prayers, or even rest easy in his\nconscience with a slight balance in his favor. But it must be\nalmost impossible for the believer in, and faithful adherent of,\nprayer-meetings to rise to the sublime conception of the Almighty,\nvoiced not only by Jesus, but by the later prophets of the Old\nTestament.\n\n\"Bring no more vain oblations (prayers or fasting): incense (prayers and\nfasting) is an abomination to me. The new moons and Sabbaths (ceremonial\nchurch services), the calling of assemblies (prayer-meetings), I cannot\naway with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and\nyour appointed feasts, my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am\nweary to bear them.\"\n\n\"Learn to _do_ well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the\nfatherless, plead for the widow\" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 17).\n\n\"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and love\nmercy, and to walk humbly with thy God\" (Micah VI:8).\n\n\n(e) THE HYPOCRISY OF FASTING\n\nThis subject also, has already been discussed under note 20, _supra_,\nbut for convenience, reference is again made to the passages in which\nJesus condemns public fasting, or fasting as a ceremony (Matt. VI:16,\n17, 18; Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33; Luke X:7).\n\nNearly everything which has been said under the last subhead concerning\npublic prayers applies with equal force to ceremonial fasting, and need\nnot be repeated here.\n\n\n(f) SUNDAY BLUE LAWS\n\nAssuming there is to be ascribed to the modern Sunday the same sanctity\nas a holy day that should be accorded to the Sabbath which Jesus\nobserved, His views on the proper observance of the day are summed up in\nthe one sentence: \"The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the\nSabbath\" (Mark II:27).\n\nThe basic idea of the old Puritan Sunday was the direct opposite of that\nof Jesus. Following the old Mosaic law, which Jesus combatted, the\nPuritans planned their celebration of the day for the \"honor and glory\"\nof God, and not for the benefit of man. Conceiving this _God_, not as a\nloving Father, but as a stern, austere Judge, who, according to Jonathan\nEdwards, had reserved the bulk of mankind for burning, who demanded\n\"sacrifice\" and not \"mercy,\" and was therefore to be propitiated and\nplacated, the Puritan ministers succeeded, while they had the power, in\nimposing on their congregations a most atrocious travesty of the Sabbath\nof Jesus. Religious services were piled up like Pelion on Ossa, and\nevery movement of the day was marked by gloom and austerity. No wonder\nthat William Lloyd Garrison said of the observance of Sunday at a much\nlater date: \"The Sabbath, as now recognized and enforced, is one of the\nmain pillars of priest-craft and superstition, and the stronghold of\nmerely ceremonial religion.\"\n\nJesus did not object to the Jewish observance of the Sabbath on the\nground that it was too \"lax\" (to use a modern term), but on just the\nopposite ground--that certain of their restrictions on man's freedom of\naction on that day were unnecessary. But the Sabbath of that time, as\nthe Jews celebrated it, and as, from all the accounts in the four\nGospels, Jesus celebrated it, was a day of joyous rest and recreation,\nand in no sense a day of spiritual maceration.\n\n\"The same character of cheerfulness, of happy rest from the toil and\nturmoil of the world's business; of quiet and peaceful return unto one's\nself; of joyous communion with friends and kindred over good cheer--in\nshort, of mental and bodily relaxation and recreation that strengthens,\nbraces, pacifies, and maketh the heart glad, while the sublime ideas\nwhich it symbolizes are recalled to the memory at every step and turn\nseems to have prevailed at all times down to our own, among the Jews.\"\n\n\"Suffice it to reiterate that in every class, every age and every\nvariety of Jews, from first to last, the Sabbath has been absolutely a\nday of joy and happiness, nay, of dancing, of singing, of eating and\ndrinking, and of luxury.\"\n\nInternational Cyclop\u00e6dia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.\n\nThis is the kind of a Sabbath which the Gospels picture Jesus as\ncelebrating, attending feasts in the houses of His friends, walking in\nthe fields with His disciples, or meeting with them in public places,\nand healing the sick when occasion offered (Matt. XII:1; Mark II:23;\nLuke VI:1; Luke XIV:1; John V:1, 2, 9; IX:1, 14).\n\nHard as it may be for Anglo-Saxon prejudice to admit, yet it seems to be\ntrue, that the Spanish Sunday--mass in the morning and a bull-fight in\nthe afternoon--is nearer than the Puritan Sunday to Jesus' ideas of the\nproper observance of the day, although He would probably approve, as\nlittle as we do, that particular form of amusement.\n\nThere is at the present time a strong and perhaps growing tendency\ntowards enacting Sunday Blue Laws. By this is meant legislation\nrestricting man's freedom of action on that day, which is based, not on\nany benefit to the individual or society, but on the old Mosaic idea of\nthe supposed sanctity of the day--that it is holy to the Lord and He\nwill be pleased by a ceremonial observance of it, different from other\ndays.\n\nInsofar as the professed followers of Jesus urge the enactment of such\nBlue Laws, it seems clear that they are not following Jesus, but going\ncontrary to His precept and example.\n\n\n(g) TEMPERANCE vs. PROHIBITION\n\nThere can be no possible doubt as to the position of Jesus on this\nquestion.\n\nAt the outset of His prophetic career, He drew the line sharply between\nHimself and John the Baptist in this matter.\n\nJohn drank no wine and practiced fasting.\n\nJesus drank wine and condemned ceremonial fasting.\n\nEach by word and example inculcated these different ideas on his\nrespective followers (Matt. XI:18, 19; Luke V:33).[62]\n\nAt the marriage in Cana, He furnishes wine for the guests when the\nsupply runs out (John II:1, 2). In His instructions to His apostles He\ntells them to eat and _drink_ such things as are set before them (Luke\nX:7). He uses wine in the celebration of the Last Supper, and promises\nHis apostles to drink with them of the \"fruit of the vine\" in heaven\n(Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:18, 30).\n\nWhen Mahomet appeared, he followed the example of John the Baptist, and\nprohibited the drinking of wine. Since his time, on two points the line\nhas always been sharply drawn between the Gospel of Jesus and that of\nMahomet. The orthodox Christian could eat pork and drink wine, while the\northodox Mohammedan could do neither.\n\nThe majority of professed Christians have presumably supported the\nrecent prohibition legislation in the United States. In so doing, they\nare not following Jesus, but going directly contrary to His precept and\nexample. They are in effect saying that, on this point, Mahomet knew\nbetter than Jesus what was for the best good of the human race.\n\n\n(h) SACRIFICE vs. MERCY\n\nUnder the term \"sacrifice,\" Jesus included all ceremonial religious\nworship, and tried constantly to impress on His followers that this was\nnot the offering pleasing to God, but, rather, deeds of mercy (Matt.\nIX:13; XXIII:23).\n\nRealizing how strong is the tendency in human nature to impute to itself\nrighteousness on account of its \"tithes of mint and anise and cummin,\"\nHe carried His condemnation of ceremonies into the smallest details.\nThis is well illustrated by His enjoining His apostles not to wash\nbefore eating (Matt. XV:1, 2 and 20; Luke XI:37, 38). As He states, His\nobjection was not to washing in itself, but because the Pharisees had\nmade a religious ceremony of it.\n\nSimplicity is the marked characteristic of all Jesus' acts of devotion.\nWhile it was His custom to preach in the synagogue on the Sabbath day,\nyet, so far as appears in the four Gospels, Matthew's Sermon on the\nMount, Luke's Sermon on the Plain, the Lord's Prayer, and most of Jesus'\nimportant discourses were delivered, not in the synagogue and on the\nSabbath day, but wherever time and place suited His convenience--from a\nship, on a mountain, on a plain, in His own house, etc. (Matt. V:1; X:1;\nXII:2; XVIII:1; XXIII:1; XXIV:3; Mark IV:1; X:1; Luke V:3; VI:17; X:1;\nXI:1; XII:1; John III:2; IX:40; XII:22, 23; XIV; XV; XVI; XVII).\n\nTo demonstrate how far modern Christianity has traveled from the ideas\nof Jesus, it is only necessary to attend some ceremonial service in an\nEpiscopalian or Catholic Cathedral, or some protracted prayer meeting of\none of the Evangelical denominations.\n\nOut of the fruitful field of Pauline theology, there sprang, even within\na few centuries after the Crucifixion, a plentiful crop of the direst\nevils that have ever afflicted mankind--creeds and definitions of\nbelief. Fortunately, disputatious theologians are now limited to the\nweapons of pen and ink, but in the Middle Ages oceans of blood were\nspilt over these religious quarrels.\n\nIf we could suppose the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the\nThirty-nine Articles, or the Augsburg Confession to be submitted to\nJesus for His approval, it is easy to imagine the substance of His\nanswer: \"I don't know what all this stuff means. I do not understand\nyour terms--pre-destination, fore-ordination, trans-substantiation,\ninfant damnation, etc. There is nothing here that I ever preached. I\nhave given you a simple standard of righteousness, which every one can\nunderstand and follow, viz., right living. Have you forgotten my saying,\nthat 'all the law and the prophets were contained in the two\ncommandments to 'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,' and to 'love\nthy neighbor as thyself' (Matt. XXII:37-40). These creeds of yours may\nbe true, or partly true, or wholly false. But the important fact for\nyou to remember is, that they are unnecessary to salvation--are\nnon-essentials. If this sort of logomachy pleases you as an intellectual\nexercise, well and good, if it goes no further. But, beware that, in\nfollowing this _ignis fatuus_, you do not neglect the only one main\nessential to God's favor--'to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk\nhumbly with thy God.'\"\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nThe Great War has brought about a wondrous upheaval in the society of\nthe world. Nearly every phase of mental and physical activity in man is\nin a process of transformation. Government, religion, labor, pleasure,\nbusiness, finance, international relations--all are on a shifting basis,\nseeking readjustment to new ideas and new conditions. To cling to\nworn-out conceptions of life--to worn-out ideas and phrases is mere\nfolly. These new problems can only be met and settled with a \"_tabula\nrasa_.\" We must wipe out the old prejudices, the old accepted canons,\nand above all the old hypocrisies and cant.\n\nIf Christianity is to be a living, efficient force in the coming\nreadjustment, it must cleanse itself of some of these old barnacles of\nhypocrisy now clinging to it. Not that hypocrisy will be less prevalent\nunder the new regime than under the old. Human nature will remain\nessentially the same, but it will demand new forms of hypocrisy. The\nspecious, shallow reasoning of the charlatan, the fulsome adulation and\nextravagant promises of the demagogue, and other forms of humbuggery\nwill still attract their thousands. Patient merit will still suffer its\nmany spurns from the unworthy. But the followers of Jesus, if they will\nthrow overboard their useless ecclesiastical and theological lumber, and\nreturn to the simple teachings and example of the Great Teacher, are\nsure to win.\n\nThe first and most important matter is to get rid of the hypocrisy of\nwar. War is the most direful menace to the happiness and prosperity of\nmankind and, notwithstanding the bitter lessons of the Great War, little\nprogress has been made towards averting it in the future.\n\nAnd no permanent progress in that direction will be made until the\nChristian peoples of the world reject, root and branch, such views of\nnational wars as are expressed by the late President Roosevelt in the\nquotations from his works already given (see (a) War, _supra_). The\nunderlying principle of this war philosophy is the same as that of the\nmodern Germans, Treitschke, Nietzsche and Bernhardi, except that they\nexpress themselves with more brutal frankness. It was preached long ago\nby Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Eichte, Hegel and others. It is\nin substance that the State, although all its component units are\nsincere followers of Jesus, should not be governed by any moral laws in\nits dealings with other States. The State can do no wrong. It should\npursue its ends with utter, callous selfishness, and its only law is\nthat might makes right.\n\nPresident Roosevelt has been quoted, because, in his views, he\nunquestionably voiced the sentiments of the great majority of past and\npresent Americans. If this be true, should we not look for the beam in\nour own eye, before we criticize Germany for starting the Great War? She\nwas simply applying the law that might makes right, except that she\nunderestimated the might of the enemies she was arraying against\nherself. If she had been successful (as she probably would have been\nexcept for the unexpected valor and self-sacrifice of the Belgians),\nwould she have been any worse sinner (barring some barbarous details of\nher warfare) than the United States with its condonation and approval of\nthe Mexican and Spanish wars? Both of these were wars of aggression\nagainst weaker nations, and the Mexican war, at least, is admitted on\nall hands to have been morally unjustifiable, even by such stalwart\nAmericans as President Roosevelt. More than a hundred years ago, a\ndistinguished admiral of the United States Navy is reported to have\nsaid: \"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she\nalways be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.\" Now, this is a\nhigh-sounding phrase and is a great refuge for Jingo politicians when\nthey have precipitated the country into an unrighteous war. But before\nthe bar of Jesus it is the veriest clap-trap. The sincere follower of\nJesus should insist that we be sure we are right in the first instance,\nand, if it is discovered that we have been misled into a by-way of wrong\nand injustice, that we get back at once to the straight and narrow way\nof right and justice.\n\nOur churches must denounce these Rooseveltian doctrines early and late,\nas a perversion of Jesus' laws. They must insist that opposition to wars\nbecomes a service of the heart and not of the lip. They must mould us\ninto a nation of sincere \"conscientious objectors,\" condemning all wars\nas un-Christian, judging every aggressive war as _prima facie_\nunjustifiable, and insisting that the advocates of any war prove the\njustness of their cause beyond a reasonable doubt. Let our politicians\nand leaders understand that if they plunge us into an unjust war, they\nare to be punished, and not rewarded by the Presidency, as was Roosevelt\nafter the Spanish war, and Taylor after the Mexican war. How many of our\nwars would have lacked advocates, if they had been obliged to plead\ntheir cause under the principles of the Sermon on the Mount?\n\nAs long as the people of the United States are animated by, and their\nconduct based on, the war philosophy of Roosevelt, it is hard to see how\nany League of Nations could be anything but a farce--a mere \"scrap of\npaper.\" On the other hand, if all the Christian nations were sincere,\nardent \"conscientious objectors,\" wars would be avoided without the need\nof any League of Nations. If the Christian people of Germany had been\n\"conscientious objectors\" in this sense, there would not have been a\nGreat War. But unfortunately they were of a different faith, and\naccording to German writers still cling to that faith, after all their\nbitter experiences. (Germany since the Revolution. Yale Review, Jan.,\n1921). Nor may we flatter ourselves that we are free from the same\nviews. For instance, there is apparently, at the present time (as there\nwas before the Spanish war) a Jingo junto of politicians and newspapers\nwho seize every opportunity to stir up prejudice and hostility against\nJapan, although it has always acted towards us as a peace-loving,\nneighborly nation. If it were as vulnerable to our attack as Mexico or\nSpain, these Hotspurs might quite likely drag us into a war, but the\nuncertainty of the contest in this case must give them pause.\n\nAnother field for church action is in working towards making Sunday like\nthe Sabbath of Jesus' time--a day of joyous relaxation and recreation,\nbut always remembering that deeds of mercy and the promotion of the\nhappiness of others, are to feature the day, as the offering acceptable\nto God. One of the marked features of the time is the growing spirit of\nunrest and discontent among the mass of the people. This spirit of\nunrest manifests itself, in part, by an increasing appetite for\namusement. While this outlet for people's uneasiness may perhaps not be\nof the highest, it is much preferable to others, to which their\ndiscontent might turn. The churches should recognize this present need\nof man, realize the truth of Jesus saying that the Sabbath was made for\nman, oppose all new Sunday Blue Laws, and seek the repeal of those now\nexisting. Instead of putting the ban of the church on all Sunday\namusements, it should encourage such harmless recreations as it can well\nsanction under the example of Jesus. There should be meetings in the\nchurches, as in the synagogue in Jesus' time, but as an incident, and\nnot the chief end, of the day.\n\nIn the matter of temperance vs. prohibition, a great Christian nation\nhas, for the first time in history, recently inaugurated the experiment\nof a general prohibition law. What the results of this policy may be,\nremains an uncertain question for the future to decide. Certain it is\nthat the Anglo-Saxon race has reached its present stage of progress and\ncivilization under a regime of practically unrestricted use of alcoholic\ndrinks. Of the eminent names in its history--in government, war,\nliterature, arts, sciences, industrial work and invention--the\npercentage of those who all their lives have been consistent abstainers\nfrom liquor must be exceedingly small. The prohibitionist will say that\nall this progress has been made in spite of the evils of drink. But that\ncan only be proved by generations of experience under prohibition laws.\nThe other hypothesis is, _prima facie_, equally tenable, that this\nprogress has been due in part to the stimulus which the temperate use of\nliquor undoubtedly does, at least temporarily, give to the physical and\nmental activity of man. The thirteen centuries of experience of the\nfollowers of Mahomet demonstrate that prohibition does not of itself\nproduce great men, or general virtue, progress or prosperity.\n\nTheoretically the success of prohibition is handicapped by the fact that\nit is opposed to the evolutionary processes of nature. The basic idea of\nprohibition is to improve man by removing the cause of evil. For no one\ncan deny that excess of drinking is an evil, just as is excess of\neating, of fasting, of prayer, or any other form of human activity. Even\nexcess of charity may be an evil, if it results in impoverishing one's\nfamily. But nature works on the contrary idea. It develops its highest\ntypes by exposing them to evil, and teaching them to conquer it. Take\nthe matter of climate, for instance. _A priori_ one might have reasoned\nthat a mild, equable climate, like that of the South Sea Islands, where\nthe means of subsistence are easily obtained, would be the best for the\nhuman race. It could plausibly be argued that man would have more time\nand energy for his intellectual development if he were not absorbed in a\ncontinuous, laborious struggle for his physical existence. But\nexperience has shown that just this contest with the extremes of heat\nand cold--this continual battle for subsistence under uncongenial\nconditions--has produced not only the most efficient workers in material\nprogress, but also the highest types of intellectual development.\nWhether the prohibition theory of wrapping men in lamb's wool, instead\nof putting them out to fight the battle of life, will not produce more\nevil than good, is at least uncertain. It may be that, after some time\nof experimenting, men may come back to the idea that Jesus was right in\nthinking that temperance is better for the human race than prohibition.\n\nFurthermore, prohibition, besides being opposed both to the laws of\nJesus and the laws of nature, has the essential weakness, as a remedy\nfor intemperance, that it attacks the means or rather one of the means,\nof intemperance, and not the cause--the _causa efficiens_, as the\nlogicians would say. The Anglo-Saxons have for centuries been\nmeat-eaters and liquor-drinkers. What end they would have attained on a\ndiet of vegetables and cold water, we can only guess, but all science is\nwrong if it would not have been some end quite different. Now, this\nappetite for stimulants--the growth of centuries--is not to be\neradicated by prohibiting the use of alcoholic drinks, any more than the\nappetite for fornication can be eradicated by the suppression of houses\nof prostitution. In spite of all the prohibition laws in the world, the\nappetite for stimulants will continue to exist in the Anglo-Saxon race,\nand will seek its gratification in one way, if not in another. Whether\nthese substitutes may not be worse in the end than alcohol, remains to\nbe seen. Suppose, for instance, that accustomed liquor-drinkers should\nnow substitute, as their stimulant, large quantities of strong tea or\ncoffee, or, possibly, some concentrated product of one or the other of\nthose plants. Probably nine-tenths of our medical authorities would\nagree that the change would be, generally speaking, undoubtedly for the\nworse.\n\nIt is to be observed that never in the United States has there been\nmade any general systematic effort towards temperance, such as is now\nbeing made towards prohibition. No greater hypocrisy has ever been\nworked off on the American people than that under the name of\n\"Temperance.\" Societies have labeled themselves with that name, orators\nand prominent leaders have paraded under that name, when, in\nfact, it was a mere subterfuge, and the bearers of it were really\nprohibitionists. Probably no one who has ever worked for real temperance\nmeasures in any of our large cities but would testify that his work has\nbeen seriously hampered by the entire lack of interest, if not by the\nactual hostility, of these so-called temperance reformers and societies.\nIn fact, many of them would make no scruple in openly avowing that they\nwere opposed to any practical temperance measure, because it would\nretard the coming prohibition. With the hearty support of the\nprohibitionists, there is no reason today why scientific temperance\nmeasures should not be put in force throughout the United States, that\nwould do away with at least seventy-five per cent of the evils of\ndrunkenness.\n\nOur present Federal prohibition law is still on trial. It never would\nhave been enacted unless we had been precipitated into the Great War. It\nhas never been submitted to a plebiscite of the people. In one respect,\nit has done much evil in increasing the unrest and discontent of a large\npart of our population, who regard malt liquors as comparatively\ninnocuous, and as necessary to their comfort and health, and who regard\nthe deprivation of them as an invasion of their personal liberty. When\nRome was threatened, as we are now, by a rising tide of unrest and\ndiscontent, the rulers of that day advised \"_panem et circenses_\"--food\nand amusement. Many of the thinkers of today neglect this sage, old\nmaxim in depriving the people of their beer, in urging more stringent\nSunday Blue Laws, and, generally, in restricting or prohibiting popular\namusements, on one pretext or the other. In reading some of the proposed\nrestrictions on minors, one sometimes wonders how it is supposed that\nstalwart, young lads from sixteen to twenty-one are to spend their\nevenings. They most assuredly will not spend them at home reading the\nBible.\n\nIn the future consideration of temperance vs. prohibition, it will be\nwell for the followers of Jesus to weigh maturely His position on the\nquestion. His precept and example are not lightly to be disregarded,\nespecially where, as here, they harmonize with the laws of nature,\ninstead of, as in the case of war, being opposed to them. If all\nhypocrisy were eliminated, and the non-compromisers and sacro-sancts\nkept out of the discussion, there is no reason why the opposing forces\nof temperance and prohibition could not arrive at a compromise, which\nwould reduce the evil of drunkenness to a minimum, and, at the same\ntime, not rob life of the joy and good cheer that comes from a temperate\nenjoyment of the \"fruit of the vine.\" If it is to be a part of the\nheavenly life (Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:30), let it be also\na part of the earthly life.\n\nIn the matters of prayer, fasting and ceremonial worship, the churches\nmust make radical changes in their practice, if they are to win back\ntheir influence over the masses of the people--an influence which, it is\ngenerally admitted, has been on the wane during the past few decades.\nThe contrast is altogether too glaring between the simple form of\nworship, practiced and preached by Jesus, and that of most of our modern\nreligious denominations. The luxury of modern living is a favorite\nsubject of invective by essayists and philosophical writers. But it is\nlittle wonder that the layman runs to this extreme, when he has before\nhim the example set by many of the successors of Jesus' apostles--popes,\nbishops, cardinals, ministers of wealthy parishes, etc. And, in saying\nthis, the fact is not overlooked that many ministers of the Gospel are\nworthy, self-denying, conscientious followers of Jesus in these matters,\nbut the exceptions are too numerous. The conduct of a class is usually\njudged by that of its most prominent representatives.\n\nAs to creeds, theological disputes and sectarian differences, the common\npeople are more and more acting on the lines of Pope's couplet:\n\n    \"_For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight;\n    His can't be wrong, whose life is in the right.\n    In faith and hope the world will disagree;\n    But all mankind's concern is charity._\"\n\n\n\n\n     _After the death of Mr. Atwater it developed that he had instructed\n     the Trust Company having his affairs in charge to make money gifts\n     to about one hundred of his friends._\n\n     _A few of those so remembered have published the accompanying book\n     for distribution among Mr. Atwater's intimate acquaintances. The\n     text is that of a pamphlet which he published just before his\n     death._\n\n     _Inside this leaflet are reproduced copies of a letter to the Trust\n     Company regarding the gifts and a memorandum, found in his desk, as\n     to the disposition of his remains._\n\n\n\n\n Minneapolis, Minn.\n Sept. 1/15\n\n Minneapolis Trust Company,\n 115 South Fifth Street,\n City.\n\nDear Sirs:--\n\nIn distributing the property which will come to you under my will, I\nwish you to exercise a reasonable discretion, since conditions may be\nquite different at the time of my death from what they are now. I very\nlikely have overlooked some of my old friends who should be remembered,\nand in such case I should wish you to make the matter right as though\nthey were included in my list.\n\nIn case I should die after sickness of some duration, the people who\nhave taken care of me in this sickness should be also remembered.\n\nIn case there should be any deficiency of property to fill these\nbequests, I should prefer that the deficiency should be taken out of the\nlarger amounts to friends who do not really need the money, rather then\nto reduce all of the bequests pro rata. Under present conditions there\nshould be a surplus of several thousand dollars. This you might hold for\nsome time and if any of my friends came to actual want, you could use it\nfor their benefit or, if not used for that purpose, you could give it to\nsome hospital or asylum.\n\nIf you deem it advisable, you may make explanation that the varying\namounts of these legacies are not to be taken as indicating the degree\nof my regard for recipients, since I have considered to a considerable\nextent the financial condition of my friends. To some of them any amount\nof money I could leave would be of no account pecuniarily, while in case\nof others it might be of some real help; I have also given my girl\nfriends largely the advantage in amounts.\n\nI will keep a duplicate of this list, which will be among my papers, and\nmay make changes in it from time to time, which will be of the same\neffect as though communicated to you.\n\n Yours very truly,\n\n John B. Atwater.\n\n\n\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\n\nI wish my remains to be cremated as quietly as possible, and do not care\nto have a minister hold any services. While I believe in God the\nInfinite not ourselves which is eternal I do not believe in any of the\nman-made Gods and Creeds which now exist and which in my opinion have\nentirely perverted the simple gospel taught by Christ. As I have no near\nrelatives to be pained by the absence of conventional ceremonies, I\nmight as well be consistent to the end. I have no particular use for\nflowers at a funeral, and would prefer, if my friends feel it necessary\nto express their regret in a tangible form, that they would send checks\nto some Hospital or Asylum in my memory for the amount they would\notherwise spend on flowers.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[1] Renan says that \"the family of David had, as it seems, been long\nextinct\" before Joseph's birth. Life of Jesus, Chap. XV.\n\n[2] The first verse of Luke's Gospel says that \"many\" had written about\nJesus' life before him. If, as seems probable, he had Matthew's\nnarrative before him when he wrote his Gospel, it is an interesting\nquery why he rejected in his line of ancestry Solomon--the most\n\"glorious\" of the Jewish rulers--in favor of the obscure and\ncomparatively unknown Nathan.\n\n[3] It is somewhat curious that Matthew and Luke, who are the only two\nevangelists to attribute a divine ancestry to Jesus (see heading\n\"Conception\"), are the only two to give a genealogy of Joseph. From\ntheir point of view, it was entirely immaterial whether Joseph was a\ndescendant of David or not. An attempt to trace Mary's lineage back to\nDavid would have had some materiality.\n\nOn the other hand, it would seem that Mark and John, who ignore the\npaternity of the Holy Ghost, would have deemed it of high importance to\nestablish, if possible, one of these genealogies. All Jewry at this time\nwas teeming with expectation of the coming of a Messiah, and their\nprophets had marked Him out as one of the lineage of David (Psalms\nCXXXII:2; Jer. XXIII:4; John VII:42). No stronger argument could have\nbeen found to win the favor of the Jews to Jesus than the linking of His\nname with David.\n\nIn Cadman's \"Harmony of the Gospels,\" page 39, the author makes an\ningenious attempt to \"harmonize\" these two lines of ancestry--the\nsuper-natural and the Davidian. This he does by making Luke's genealogy\none of Mary, instead of Joseph. By this means the super-natural\nfatherhood of Jesus is saved and, at the same time He can claim, through\nHis mother, a descent from David.\n\nThe main trouble with this theory is that Cadman is obliged to make Heli\nthe father of Mary, when Luke expressly says that Heli was the father of\nJoseph (Luke III:23). At another place, Luke speaks of _Joseph,_ not\n_Mary_, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).\n\n[4] There was no God--the Holy Ghost--known to the Jews, and Joseph\ncould not have understood the meaning of the term without some\nexplanation.\n\n[5] It is to be noted that Matthew does not explain why the angel\nchanged the name in the prophecy--Immanuel--to that of Jesus.\n\n[6] Apparently the Angel must have told Mary His name.\n\n[7] Cadman, in the work already referred to, page 37, \"harmonizes\" these\ntwo variant accounts of the angelic announcements by giving Matthew's\nversion in his text, and simply referring to Luke's account in a note.\n\n[8] From Luke's narrative it does not appear that Joseph had any doubts\nas to Jesus being his child, or, if he did, how these doubts were\nremoved.\n\n[9] The story of the miraculous conception of Jesus would be thrown out\nof any impartial court upon the evidence of the four Gospels alone.\n\n(a) The two narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on\nseveral important details, as is shown above. This discredits each of\nthem as a reliable, accurate authority on this point.\n\n(b) This story is entirely omitted from the narratives of our two\nfirst-hand authorities--Mark and John.\n\nNow, it is unthinkable that the authors of these two Gospels, if they\nknew of this story and believed it to be true, would not have recorded\nso important a fact in the life of Jesus.\n\nConsequently, they either did not know of the story or, knowing it, did\nnot believe it to be true.\n\nEither hypothesis is equally fatal to the credit of the story.\n\nIf they, writing shortly after Jesus' death and, presumably,\ninvestigating all sources of information about His prophetic\ncareer--probably personally interviewing those persons then living who\nhad seen, heard and known Jesus most intimately--had heard nothing of\nthis story, then it must have been such an obscure legend, buried in the\ninner consciousness of so few people, as to be unworthy of serious\nconsideration as a fact of history.\n\nIf, on the other hand, these writers knew of the story, but, after\ninvestigation of the abundant sources of information at their command,\nrejected it as untrue, what warrant have subsequent historians, not\npossessing their special means of information, to claim that their\ndecision was wrong?\n\n(c) The story of Jesus' supernatural paternity is most effectually\ndiscredited by the fact that no such claim on His behalf was advanced\nby, nor was the story known to, those nearest to Him during His\nlifetime.\n\nHis nearest friends and neighbors, who had been in daily intercourse\nwith Him at Nazareth for thirty years, had no suspicion of such a claim\nbeing made on His behalf, even some time after He had begun his\npreaching.\n\n\"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His\nbrethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?\" (Matt. XIII:55; Mark\nVI:3.) (See also Matt. XII:47.)\n\nStill later, the multitudes who came to hear Him knew nothing of such a\nclaim.\n\n\"Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?\"\n(John VI:42).\n\nLuke himself says that Jesus \"was supposed\" to be the son of Joseph\n(Luke III:23).\n\nThere is, in fact, no evidence in the four Gospels to show that, during\nJesus' lifetime, there was, at any time or place or by any person, a\npublic claim made that He was not as much the son of Joseph, in the\nnatural course of events, as He was the son of Mary.\n\n(d) _Jesus in His lifetime never denied the paternity of Joseph._\n\nOn one occasion, in the synagogue at Nazareth, when He had been\npreaching and the people \"wondered\" at His \"gracious words,\" \"they said,\nIs not this Joseph's son?\" And He said unto them, among other things,\n\"No prophet is accepted in his own country\" (Luke IV:22, 23). That is,\nthe people were loath to accept Jesus' teachings because of His lowly\nbirth. But Jesus, instead of claiming a divine parentage, impliedly\naffirms the fatherhood of Joseph.\n\nOn another occasion He is challenged as to His paternity, and does not\ndeny that He is the son of Joseph (John VI:42).\n\nIf He had believed that the Holy Ghost was His father, then these two\nutterances would have been a _suppressio veri_--the equivalent of a\nfalsehood--of which we cannot think Him guilty.\n\nWhile Jesus never applies to Himself the title of \"Son of David,\" yet\nHis claim to this lineage must have been widely circulated, since He is\ngiven this title not only by the Jews (Matt. IX:27; XII:23; XX:30;\nXXI:9, 15; Mark X:47; XI:10; Luke I:32; XVIII:38), but also by the\nGentiles (Matt. XV:22). His silence and failure to object, when so\naddressed, certainly constitutes a tacit approval of this description of\nHimself. But He could only be a descendant of David by reason of the\nfact that Joseph was His father. Undoubtedly Matthew and Luke inserted\nin their narratives these two genealogies of Joseph to prove a direct\ndescent of Jesus from David through the paternity of Joseph. The Cadman\ntheory of tracing a descent from David through Mary was not known to the\nevangelists (Matt. I:16; Luke II:4).\n\nIn His meetings with his family, while He seems rather cool and\nindifferent to them, there is no intimation that His relationship to\nthem is not the ordinary one of son and brother (Matt. XII:47; Mark\nIII:31; Luke VIII:19, 20; XI:28; John II:1, 12).\n\nJesus never refers to the Holy Ghost as His father, and, on four\noccasions only, calls Himself the \"Son of God\" (John III:16-18; V:20;\nIX:35; XI:4). None of the events in connection with which the term is\nused by John, are related in either of the three other Gospels. But this\nterm would convey to His hearers no other significance than that with\nwhich they were familiar from the Old Testament, where it is applied to\nbeings inferior to God (Gen. VI:2; Job I:6; II:1; XXXVIII:7; Ps.\nLXXXII:6; 2 Sam. VII:14). But this is very far from the attribute\nascribed to Jesus through the miraculous conception, of being the equal\nof, or one with, God. Jesus Himself refers to others as being the\n\"children of God\" (Luke XX:36; Matt. V:45), and He speaks constantly of\nGod being the \"Father\" of His hearers (Matt. V:16, 45; VI:1, 6, 14;\nXVIII:14 _et passim_). Apparently He makes no distinction between this\n\"fatherhood,\" as related to others, and as related to Himself. For\ninstance, He tells Mary to go to His disciples and say unto them, \"I\nascend unto my Father, and _your_ Father and to _my_ God and _your_ God\"\n(John XX:17).\n\nJesus' favorite appellation for Himself is \"the Son of _Man_.\" He uses\nthis name constantly throughout the four Gospels, and uniformly, except\nin the four instances cited from John. In speaking of the most solemn\nand important events of His career, He prefers this name to \"the Son of\nGod,\" or any other. \"Of him, also, shall the _Son of Man_ be ashamed,\nwhen He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels\" (Mark\nVIII:38; XIII:26; Luke IX:26). In passages like these, it seems\nnecessary to eliminate the words \"of man,\" if they are to harmonize with\nthe theory of the paternity of the Holy Ghost. Again, on His trial, when\nthe high priest \"adjures\" Him: \"Tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the\nSon of God,\" Jesus follows His usual noncommittal answer, \"Thou hast\nsaid,\" with the statement: \"Hereafter shall ye see the _Son of Man_\nsitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven\n(Matt. XXVI:64; Luke XXII:69; Mark XIV:62; John VIII:28; XII:23, 34,\n35).\n\n(e) Finally, to close all argument on this point, there are the many\nexpress statements of Jesus to the effect that He was not the same as,\nor the equal of, God (Matt. XIX:17; XX:23; Mark X:18, 40; Luke XVIII:19;\nJohn XIV:28; XVII:3).\n\n[10] Evidently Elisabeth never told John of this visit of Mary, since\nJohn says of his first meeting with Jesus that \"I knew Him not,\" until\nhe saw \"the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon\nHim\" (John I:31-33; see also Matt. XI:3; Luke VII:19).\n\n[11] Unfortunate as it may be to lose the beautiful story of the birth\nat Bethlehem, with its poetic imagery of the manger, the visit of the\n\"wise men,\" and the greeting of the shepherds, the evidence of the four\nGospels proves its untruth even more strongly than the story of the\nmiraculous conception.\n\n(a) The contradictory details appearing in the two narratives discredit\neach as a reliable authority.\n\nMatthew has Jesus born in a house, greeted by \"wise men of the East,\"\nand going to Egypt immediately after His birth, and remaining there\nuntil after Herod's death.\n\nLuke has Him born in a manger, greeted by shepherds, remaining in\nBethlehem for several weeks, then going to Jerusalem, and from there\n_returning_ \"into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth\" (Luke II:39). His\nparents could not have been in Egypt, avoiding the wrath of Herod,\nbecause \"they went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover\"\n(Luke II:41).\n\nHerod's massacre of the innocents is, of course, unknown to Luke,\nbecause, according to him, no \"flight of the holy family to Egypt\" ever\ntook place. This massacre is not mentioned in the four Gospels, except\nin this Chapter of Matthew, nor is it recorded by any profane historian\nof that time, like Josephus. Even supposing that Herod--a Roman tetrarch\nand not an independent despot--would have dared a wholesale slaughter of\nRoman subjects without express authority from Augustus C\u00e6sar, yet so\nterrible an event would have left an indelible impression on the Jewish\npeople. If it had occurred, connected as it was with the birth of Jesus,\nit is incredible that the other evangelists should have omitted all\nmention of it, as well as Josephus, who records the other cruelties of\nHerod.\n\nBethlehem was some six miles south of Jerusalem, and Nazareth some sixty\nor seventy miles north of Jerusalem. Matthew does not explain why Joseph\nand Mary should have been in Bethlehem at this time, especially in view\nof her then approaching confinement. In fact, the inference from\nMatthew's narrative would be, that they were residents of Bethlehem at\nthis time. But the unvarying testimony of all the Gospels, except in\nthis one passage, is that Galilee was the native country of both Joseph\nand Mary, and that their home, after her marriage, was at Nazareth. Luke\nstates this explicitly (Luke I:26), and Matthew himself, in every other\npassage but this, speaks of Jesus as coming from Nazareth, and asserts\nthat Galilee was \"his own country\" (Matt. XIII:54; XXI:11; XXVI:71).\n\nLuke, who recognizes Nazareth as the native city of Joseph, explains his\npresence in Bethlehem on the theory that he, being of the house of\nDavid, came to Bethlehem to be enrolled under the census taken by\nQuirinius, pursuant to a decree of C\u00e6sar Augustus (Luke II:1). But the\nauthorities generally agree that this census did not extend to the\ntetrarchies, like Jud\u00e6a, and that it was taken at least ten years after\nthe birth of Jesus (Renan, Life of Jesus, Chap. II). Besides, it is\ntaxing one's credulity to the utmost to suppose that the Roman officers\nwould have allowed a citizen of Nazareth to enroll himself in an\ninsignificant village, more than sixty miles distant, on the ground that\nsome problematical ancestor had been anointed with oil in that place a\nthousand years before (1 Sam. XVI:13).\n\nAs to the contradictory accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning Jesus'\nmovements immediately after His birth, Cadman in his \"Harmony of the\nGospels\" pp. 4, 45, 48, \"harmonizes\" them by printing each of them\nwithout comment, as though both could be true.\n\n(b) The silence of Mark and John as to the birth at Bethlehem is even\nmore significant than in the matter of the miraculous conception.\n\nThere were two points most essential for Jesus and His followers to\nestablish in order to convince the Jews that He was truly their expected\nMessiah: (1) that He was of the \"house of David\"; (2) that He \"came\"\nfrom Bethlehem.\n\nThe Old Testament prophecies were explicit on these two points (Jer.\nXXIII:5; Micah V:2; Ps. CXXXII:11).\n\nThis was the general expectancy among the Jews at the time of Jesus'\nbirth (Matt. II:5, 6; XXII:42; Luke I:32).\n\n\"Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David,\nand out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?\" (John VII:42).\n\nWith such importance attaching to a birth at Bethlehem, the argument is\nirresistible that Mark and John, in not mentioning it, either did not\nknow of the story, or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true. Either\nhypothesis is equally fatal to the credibility of the story.\n\nIt is further to be noted that, while the claim of Jesus' paternity by\nthe Holy Ghost, if publicly asserted, might have stirred up some scandal\namong the good people of Nazareth, it could not have been absolutely\ndisproved. But, at the time the Gospels were written, it was\ncomparatively easy to absolutely prove whether Jesus was born at\nNazareth or at Bethlehem, more than sixty miles distant.\n\n(c) The claim was never publicly made that He was born at Bethlehem,\nnotwithstanding the great support which that fact, if true, would have\ngiven to His cause. To His friends and neighbors of thirty years'\nstanding at Nazareth, and to the \"multitudes\" in general, He was known\nonly as \"Jesus of Nazareth\" (Mark VI:1-4; Matt. XXI:11; XXVI:71; Mark\nXIV:67, 70; Luke IV:16, 22; XXII:59; XXIII:6; John VII:41, 42; XVIII:5,\n7, 8; XX:19).\n\n(d) Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever put forth this claim, even _when\nthe objection was made that He could not be the Messiah, because He came\nfrom Nazareth_.\n\nThe evidence on this point is, of course, mostly negative, consisting in\nan entire absence in the four Gospels of any reference to His birth at\nBethlehem, except the first account given in Matthew and Luke.\nThereafter it is as though it had never occurred, for anything that the\nGospels have to say about it.\n\nBut in two or three instances the question was directly raised.\n\nPhilip, one of the apostles, finds Nathaniel and says to him: \"We have\nfound Him, of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write, _Jesus\nof Nazareth, the son of Joseph_.\n\nNathaniel's reply is: \"Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?\"\n\nThe only answer which Philip makes is: \"Come and see\" (John I:45, 46).\n\nOn another occasion, Jesus' preaching so impressed His hearers that many\nof them said: Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the\nChrist. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the\nScripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the\ntown of Bethlehem, where David was? (John VII:40, 41, 42).\n\nIn both these instances the obvious answer to the objection made would\nhave been, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, if that had been a fact.\n\nAgain, on the evening of His arrest, Jesus twice affirms that He is\n\"Jesus of Nazareth\" (John XVIII:5, 8). It would seem that, in that\nsolemn moment of approaching death, Jesus would have asserted His\nMessianic claim to a birth at Bethlehem, if it had been a fact. (See\nalso Mark XVI:6; Luke XXIII:6, 7; XXIV:19; John XIX:19).\n\n[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were \"amazed,\" and, when he told\nthem that He must be about His Father's business, \"they understood not\nthe saying which He spoke unto them\" (Luke II:50). Apparently their\nknowledge of His miraculous conception, and all the predictions of\nangels, wise men, shepherds, Simeon, Anna and Elisabeth had produced\nlittle, if any, effect on their minds.\n\n[13] It is an interesting query why all four evangelists give such full\nand precise details of this ceremony. Neither John nor Jesus seems to\nhave attached much importance to it. Only a short time after it\noccurred, John had forgotten it, for, while in prison (Matt. XI:2; Mark\nVI:17), he sent some of his disciples to inquire of Jesus, \"Art Thou He\nthat should come or do we look for another?\" (Matt. XI:2-6; Luke\nVII:19-23).\n\nJesus never mentions His baptism or His then recognition by John, as\ngiving credence to His claims, although He speaks of him and his mission\nas His forerunner (Matt. XI:7-13; Luke VII:24-29). When He appeals to\nJohn as a witness to the truth of His messianic claims, He does not\nrefer to this baptismal ceremony, but relies on John's statements to\nmessengers sent to Him (John V:32, 33; III:25-36).\n\nBaptism, as it developed into a religious rite after Jesus' death--the\nfirst step towards admission into the membership of a church--was\nunknown to the Jews and to Jesus Himself (Kitto's Cyclop\u00e6dia of Bib.\nLit., pp. 282-290).\n\nJohn seems to have given it a temporary popularity, but its practice\namong the Jews ceased with his death. Jesus showed as little interest in\nit as in other rites and ceremonies. Only one of the Gospels mentions\nbaptism by Jesus' disciples, and that allusion is very indefinite (John\nIII:22; IV:1). But it is explicitly added \"though Jesus Himself baptized\nnot\" (John IV:2).\n\nThe strongest evidence on this point is Jesus' failure to enjoin the\npractice of this rite on His followers. Three of the Gospels give quite\nfully Jesus' instructions to the apostles and disciples on sending them\nout in the world to preach, and not one word is said about baptism\n(Matt. X; Mark VI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6).\n\nProbably the evangelists felt the need (more than Jesus Himself) of\nfortifying the latter's cause with the \u00e6gis of John's popularity. At\nthis time the Jews were filled with expectations of the coming of some\nruler (Elias, Christ, the Messiah, \"he who shall come,\" etc.), who\nshould establish an earthly kingdom and give them victory over the\nheathen. John's preaching appealed to this feeling and won to him great\nnumbers of adherents, who remained faithful to him even in prison (Matt.\nIII:5; XIV:5; Mark I:5; XI:32; Luke III:3). To identify Jesus with this\nexpectant one, of whom John preached, was to win at once to Jesus' cause\nall of John's great following.\n\n[14] It is to be noted that the Epistle of James is directed \"to the\ntwelve tribes which are scattered abroad\" (James I:1), and contains no\nallusion whatever to the Gentiles. There is some dispute whether the\nauthor of this epistle, who was bishop of Jerusalem for many years, was\nthe brother or cousin-german of Jesus, or the brother of John, \"the\nbeloved disciple.\" There is no doubt, however, that he was an intimate\nassociate of Jesus during His life-time, and, presumably, a much more\naccurate authority on His views than Paul or others who had never seen\nJesus or heard Him speak.\n\n[15] There may be urged, against this view of Jesus' conception of His\nmission, certain passages occurring in the different accounts of the\nresurrection.\n\nMatthew relates that, on the appearance of Jesus on a mountain in\n_Galilee_ to the eleven apostles, where \"some doubted\" whether it were\nHe or not, Jesus said, \"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost\" (Matt. XXVIII:19).\n\nMark relates that, on Jesus' appearance in _Jerusalem_ \"unto the eleven\nas they sat at meat,\" He said: \"Go ye into all the world, and preach the\nGospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be\nsaved; but he that believeth not shall be damned\" (Mark XVI:14, 15, 16).\n\nLuke relates that, when Jesus appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven, He\ntold them that Christ was to suffer and rise the third day \"that\nrepentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among\nall nations, beginning at Jerusalem\" (Luke XXIV:47).\n\nAccording to John, who is by many regarded the most reliable authority\non the events of Passion Week, and who describes the appearances of\nJesus both at Jerusalem and on the sea-shore in Galilee, Jesus said\nnothing indicating any change in His views about preaching to the\nGentiles or the importance of baptism. On the contrary, He three times\nsays to Peter, \"Feed my lambs\" or \"Feed my sheep\" (John XXI:15, 16, 17).\nBut His \"sheep\" were \"the lost sheep of the house of Israel,\" with whom\nalone His mission lay (Matt. XV:24).\n\nThe glaring contradictions on this point between Matthew, Mark and Luke\nmake their evidence of little weight as against the clear and explicit\nutterances of Jesus, which these same evangelists have recorded in the\nearlier part of their Gospels. No two of them agree as to just what was\nsaid, or when it was said. The use by Matthew of the later formula of\nbaptism--\"in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost\"--which\napparently was never used by John the Baptist or Jesus' disciples, marks\nhis passage with the strongest suspicion.\n\nThe account of John is the only one consistent with the previous history\nof Jesus, and it is more than probable that these passages from Matthew,\nMark and Luke were interpolated through the influence of Paul and his\nfollowers.\n\n[16] These solitary \"retreats\" for fasting, prayer and meditation to a\ndesert, wilderness or mountain are common occurrences in the lives of\nreligious teachers, prophets, saints, etc., of the Orient. They seem,\nhowever, somewhat foreign to the character of Jesus (Luke VII:33, 34;\nMatt. IX:14). This is the only formal fasting by Jesus mentioned in the\nfour Gospels. Several times it is related that He went up into a mount,\nbut He either did not go alone, or He spent only a short time,--a day or\na night.\n\nIn its location--a mountain--and its duration--forty days--this fast\nfollows the Old Testament precedents of Moses, on Mount Sinai (Exod.\nXXXIV:28), and the prophet Elijah on Mount Horeb (I Kings XIX:8).\n\nThe rather theatrical adjunct of the devil and his temptations may fall\nin the same category, as Matthew's massacre of the innocents and the\nflight to Egypt. It gives opportunity, however, to bring in several\nquotations from the Old Testament.\n\nIt must be remembered that, as Jesus preached only to the Jews, so the\nGospels (except possibly John), were written with the purpose of\nconvincing the Jews of the truth of Jesus' claims to be their Messiah.\nThe more their authors could connect Him with the sayings and\npredictions of the Old Testament, the stronger their case. Hence, with\nnearly every incident of Jesus' life, they cite some appropriate text of\nthe Old Testament, usually with the addition, \"that it might be\nfulfilled\" or \"as it was spoken by the prophet.\" In their zeal, it is\npossible that, in some cases, an incident was found to fit a text,\nrather than a text to fit an incident.\n\n[17] Apparently, after Jesus left Nazareth, He became domiciled at\nCapernaum (Mark II:1,15; Matt. IX:1).\n\n[18] The four Gospels use the term \"disciples\" without much distinction,\nas meaning either the apostles or the immediate, personal adherents of\nJesus for the time being.\n\n[19] According to Mark this \"feast\" was in Jesus' house (Mark II:15; see\nMatt. IX:10).\n\n[20] This first discourse of Jesus stands unequaled in religious\nwritings for its clearness, simplicity and freedom from dogmatic\ntheology. To appreciate this, it is only necessary to cite some passages\nfrom John's Gospel, which in comparison seem mystic, turgid and\nambiguous (John I:1-14; III:11-23; IV:50-59). There is scarcely a\nsentence in the Sermon on the Mount susceptible of a double meaning, or\nwhich a man of ordinary education cannot understand without the aid of a\nlearned exegesis. Yet how hard it is for the poor human followers of\nJesus to rise to its grand simplicity. Take, for instance, the subject\nof fasting. It seems almost impossible for the Christian, of ancient or\nmodern times, to escape from the idea that, in mortifying the flesh, he\nis doing something pleasing to God. John the Baptist both fasted and\nenjoined fasting on his disciples. But Jesus neither fasted Himself, nor\nenjoined fasting on His disciples (Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33;\nMatt. III:4; Luke VII:33-34). With His sane view of life, free of all\nfanaticism, He here, as always, inculcated temperance, condemning the\nexcess of asceticism, as much as the excess of overindulgence in eating\nand drinking. While He does not prohibit fasting, He, in very plain\nlanguage checks the enthusiasm of His disciples to make the public\npractice of fasting a mark of holiness.\n\n\"Moreover, when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites of a sad countenance,\nfor they disfigure their faces that they may appear to fast.\"\n\n\"But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head and wash thy face. That\nthou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in\nsecret\" (Matt. VI:16, 17, 18).\n\nThis seems so clear that he who runs may read, and how the Roman\nCatholic and Protestant Episcopal Churches make it square with their\npublic celebration of the Lenten fast, for instance, is hard to\nunderstand. The \"Fast Day\" of New England would seem to come directly\nunder Jesus' condemnation.\n\n[21] The Sermon on the Mount is probably composed of a number of\nutterances at different times and places, which have been compiled and\nput together in one discourse by the author of this Gospel.\n\n[22] The promulgation of the Lord's Prayer is one of the most\nsignificant events of Jesus' prophetic career. It illustrates both His\nconception of God, and, as a consequence, His dislike of all ceremonial\nworship.\n\nThe persistent weakness of every religion is to gradually forget, or\nignore, the spiritual unity of its supreme divinity with his human\nfollowers. Whatever may have been the conception of the Deity by the\nfirst great teacher, he soon comes to be regarded as a Being apart, like\nthe deified monarchs of ancient times, and as one who can be pleased, or\nhis wrath averted, by offerings and sacrifices. Practically all\nreligions having their beginning from barbarous races are founded on\nsacrifices of animals, and usually of human beings. Even fairly well\ncivilized nations are not offended by legends describing human\nsacrifices as being welcome to God. Examples of this are Abraham and\nIsaac among the Jews, Iphigenia at Aulis among the Greeks, and Curtius\namong the Romans. The ceremonies attending the rendition of these\nofferings and sacrifices form often the most important part of the\nreligion, as is illustrated by the innumerable minute regulations\ncontained in the Mosaic books of the Old Testament.\n\nBut Jesus' conception of the Heavenly Father was essentially unique in\never realizing the spiritual unity existing between the Father in heaven\nand His Son Jesus and His other children on earth. Mark the difference\nbetween Moses and Jesus in the matter of divine communications. Moses'\nmessages to the Jews are the results of direct and separate interviews\nwith the Almighty. He sees Him in the bush, or in the fire, and hears\nHim from the clouds. But all this is unnecessary with Jesus. He and the\nFather are one, and when He speaks, the Father speaks through Him. In\nthe beautiful words of Renan:\n\n\"Jesus had no visions; God did not speak to Him as to one outside of\nHimself; God was in Him; He felt Himself with God, and He drew from His\nheart all He said of His Father. He lived in the bosom of God by\nconstant communication with Him; he saw Him not, but he understood Him,\nwithout need of the thunder and the burning bush of Moses, of the\nrevealing tempests of Job, of the oracle of the old Greek sages, of the\nfamiliar genius of Socrates, or of the angel Gabriel of Mahomet. The\nimagination and the hallucination of a St. Theresa, for example, are\nuseless here. The intoxication of the Soufi, proclaiming himself\nidentical with God, is also quite another thing. Jesus never once gave\nutterance to the sacrilegious idea that He was God. He believed Himself\nto be in direct communication with God; He believed Himself to be the\nSon of God. The highest consciousness of God which has existed in the\nbosom of humanity was that of Jesus.\"\n\nWith this conception of God, the idea of offerings or sacrifices to\nplease or placate Him becomes unthinkable. All He asks of His earthly\nchildren is that they lead a God-like life.\n\nHuman nature, however, seems too weak to free itself from this\nsuperstition of a Supreme Being to be pleased and His wrath averted.\nBut, as a nation becomes more civilized and spiritualized, the\nmanifestation of this superstition takes on different forms. The smoking\naltars with their living victims disappear, and, in a measure, the\nmaterial offerings of shields and other weapons, chariots, gold and\nsilver vessels, jewels, etc. But their place is taken by rites and\nceremonies, of which prayer is always foremost. The pilgrimages, votive\nofferings, masses, adoration of holy places, long prayers (especially\nfor victory over our enemies), elaborate church ceremonials, public\nfastings, erection of expensive churches \"to the glory of God,\" legacies\nto \"pious uses,\" etc., of the present day are the legitimate successors\nof the \"fat thighs\" of the Greeks, and the Shew-bread of the\nJews--offerings to win the favor of a possibly offended or indifferent\nDeity. We laugh at the \"prayer-mill\" of the Hindus, but the idea is the\nsame as procuring better treatment for your departed soul by purchasing\nthe performance of long \"masses,\" if you have sufficient wealth.\n\nAt the time of Jesus the Jewish religion, as moulded by the Pharisees,\nwas dominated by the spirit of formalism. Attendance at the synagogue,\npublic prayers and fasting, observance of minute Sabbatical and other\nregulations, were made of more importance than visiting the sick,\nhelping the poor, succoring the widow and orphan, etc. But the essence\nof Jesus' religion was the living of an every-day godlike life, not the\nadherence to certain creeds or dogmas, or the performance of rites and\nceremonies. In this formalism He recognized His most dangerous enemy. It\nwas a deep-rooted evil and hard to eradicate. One of its inherent\ndangers is the easy cloak it lends to hypocrisy, and, like the poor, the\nPecksniffs we will always have with us.\n\nConsequently we find Jesus early and late inveighing against the \"long\nprayers\" of the Pharisees and heathen, and the bitterest term He can\napply to the Pharisees is \"ye hypocrites.\" When He comes to instruct His\ndisciples on the subject of prayer, it is quite probable that He would\nhave interdicted it altogether, except for that sane temperance which\nwas so fundamental an element of His character. He recognized the\nessential uselessness of prayer addressed to an all-good and all-wise\nFather, since He knows what is best for each person without being\ninstructed, and from His great goodness will do what is best for each\nperson without being asked.\n\n\"For your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him\"\n(Matt. VI:8).\n\nJesus therefore carefully enjoins on His disciples that they shall not\npray in the synagogue, but \"when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,\nand when thou hast shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret\"\n(Matt. VI:5, 6). He also cautions them against long prayers--\"use not\nvain repetitions as the heathen do\" (Matt. VI:7).\n\nHe then gives them a short, simple prayer, as a model for their efforts.\n\nOn this point of prayer Jesus makes Himself clear beyond any possibility\nof misunderstanding, as in the case of fasting, and with apparently as\nlittle effect on the modern Christian. The very term \"prayer-meeting\"\nwould be anathema to Jesus, and, if He were enticed into one of these\n\"meetings,\" He would assuredly think He was in the midst of His old\nenemies, the Pharisees.\n\n[23] The \"Gadarene swine\" were the subject of a once famous controversy\nbetween Huxley and Gladstone (Huxley. Some Controverted Questions.\nChaps. XIV, XV). In the course of the wordy battle there occurs a\ndelicious bit of humor which is worth preserving. Huxley starts out by\nsaying that, for himself, he does not believe the miracle ever occurred,\nand then adds that he should consider that \"the wanton destruction of\nother people's property is a misdemeanor of evil example.\" Gladstone\ncomments on this that, after eighteen centuries of worship of Jesus, \"it\nhas been reserved to a scientific inquirer to discover that He was not\nbetter than a law-breaker and an evil-doer.\" Huxley objects to this\naccusation, because, as he expressly said he did not believe Jesus ever\nsent any devils into any swine, he can hardly be guilty of charging\nJesus with this evil-doing. In his following article Gladstone states\nHuxley's position, does not withdraw his accusation, but, in a manner of\napology, says: \"The difference, _from his point of view_, is probably\nmaterial, and I therefore regret that I overlooked it.\"\n\n[24] This miracle occurs in Luke before the healing of Jairus' daughter\n(Luke VIII:41).\n\n[25] The account of Luke's miracle is so vague as to be very\nunsatisfactory. The dead man is unnamed and unknown, neither his\ndwelling nor any of his relatives are identified, no one solicits Jesus\nto perform the miracle, but the bier is met casually on the street or\ncountry road, and none of the witnesses are named, as in the case of\nJairus' daughter. The narrator of such an unprecedented event, as the\nraising of one from the dead, ought at least to furnish some means of\nidentifying the resurrected person. It is small wonder that Matthew,\nMark and John know nothing of this miracle.\n\nA \"doubting Thomas\" might explain all three of these resurrection\nmiracles on the hypothesis of unexpert diagnosis of death, a trance, a\ncataleptic fit, or other form of suspended animation. This would not be\npossible in the case of Lazarus, if he had been buried in the ground\nwithout the provision of some means of respiration. But he was laid in a\ncave covered only by a stone, so that ample means of respiration are not\nexcluded.\n\nBut in the case of Lazarus, the most unexplainable matter is the silence\nof Matthew, Mark and Luke on the subject of this miracle. Lazarus and\nhis two sisters were well known to Jesus and His disciples, and the\nsisters are mentioned by all three of the evangelists. Shortly after the\nmiracle, Jesus comes to Bethany and \"there they made Him a supper\" (John\nXII:2), and Lazarus sat at the table and Martha served. \"Then took Mary\na pound of ointment of spikenard very costly and anointed the feet of\nJesus and wiped His feet with her hair\" (John XII:3). The disciples were\napparently present, because Judas Iscariot objects to the waste of the\nointment (John XII:4, 5, 6). Both Matthew and Mark relate this event as\noccurring in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, except that the\nointment is poured over Jesus' head, and neither the name of Mary or of\nJudas Iscariot is mentioned (Matt. XXVI:6-13; Mark XIV:3-9). Luke speaks\nof both Martha and Mary on the occasion when Jesus rebukes Martha for\nbeing \"troubled about many things\" (Luke X:38). The raising of Lazarus\nfrom the dead was not kept secret but was noised abroad, and was known\nto many of the Jews in Jerusalem and to the chief priests (John XI:45,\n46; XII:9, 10, 11, 17, 18).\n\nConsidering the notoriety of this miracle, the intimacy existing between\nLazarus' family and Jesus and His disciples, the relation by all the\nevangelists of other incidents in Jesus' life in which Martha and Mary\nappear, it is hard to understand why Matthew, Mark and Luke have not a\nword to say of this, the most marvelous of all of Jesus' deeds.\n\n[26] Bethsaida is on the same (west) side of the sea of Galilee as\nCapernaum, and but a short distance from it, but this desert place was\napparently across the sea, near the land of the Gergesenes (John VI:1,\n17; Matt. XIV:22; Mark VI:32). Some claim that there was another\nBethsaida on the east side of the sea of Galilee.\n\n[27] It may seem strange that these numerous miracles had so little\neffect in winning permanent adherents to Jesus' cause. The Jews at this\ntime were, from all accounts, in a state of religious fermentation,\nexpecting the immediate coming of a Messiah, looking for the signs and\nportents of that coming, ready and willing to welcome any miraculous\nhappenings as proof that their hopes were about to be realized. Yet John\nthe Baptist, who did no miracles (John X:41), had apparently at the time\nof his death a stronger following than Jesus at the time of His death.\n(Compare Matt. XIV:5; Mark XI:32; Luke XX:6, with Matt. XIII:57;\nXXVII:22; John VII:1; VIII:59; X:39; XI:53.)\n\nThe earlier miracles attracted large crowds, but the evidence is\nabundant that, later, the miracles lost their effect, and in some cases,\neven aroused animosity. Thus Matthew says that Jesus, in the beginning\nof His prophetic career, \"went about all Galilee,\" teaching and\npreaching and \"healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease\namong the people.\" \"And there followed Him great multitudes of people\nfrom Galilee and from Decapolis and from Jerusalem and from Jud\u00e6a and\nfrom beyond Jordan\" (Matt. IV:23, 24, 25. See Mark III:7, 8). But, in\nChap. XIII:53-58, he relates how Jesus, coming \"into His own country\" at\na later date and preaching there, the people \"were offended in Him.\"\n\"But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his\nown country and in his own house. And He did not many mighty works there\n_because of their unbelief_.\" Mark says, \"And He could there do no\nmighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed\nthem. And He marvelled because of their unbelief\" (Mark VI:5, 6).\n\nLuke tells how, after He had preached in the synagogue in His home town\nof Nazareth, \"all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things,\nwere filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city, and\nled Him unto the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that\nthey might cast Him down headlong (Luke IV:28, 29).\n\nImmediately after Jesus had healed the man, or two men, in the country\nof the Gergesenes, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the \"whole city,\"\nor the \"whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about,\"\nbesought Him to depart out of their coasts (Matt. VIII:34; Mark V:17;\nLuke VIII:37).\n\nAfter Jesus had preached in Jerusalem and performed at least one miracle\nthere (John V:5-9), the people were so incensed against Him that \"He\nwould not walk in Jewry (Jud\u00e6a), because the Jews sought to kill Him\"\n(John VII:1).\n\nLater He went secretly into Jud\u00e6a on the occasion of the feast of the\ntabernacles (John VII:2, 10), and the people took \"up stones to cast at\nHim, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the\nmidst of them and so passed by\" (John VIII:59). Again, when He had\nrestored sight to a blind man, they reviled this man and \"cast him out\"\n(John IX:7, 34).\n\nAgain, when Jesus was at Jerusalem at the feast of the dedication (John\nX:22), \"the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.\" \"Therefore they\nsought again to take Him; but He escaped out of their hands\" (John X:31,\n39).\n\nAs regards the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the Jews, instead of\nbeing favorably affected by that stupendous miracle, were apparently\nincensed by it. They plotted to put both Lazarus and Jesus to death\n(John XII:10), and \"Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the\nJews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city\ncalled Ephraim\" (John XI:54).\n\nFinally, Jesus Himself bears witness both to His belief that miracles\nwere proof of His messianic claims, and that His miracles had failed to\ngive the support to His cause which He had expected. In one of His most\nbitter utterances, He denounces the cities of Galilee, because they\nwould not believe in Him notwithstanding the many \"mighty works\" which\nHe had performed in their midst.\n\n\"Woe unto thee, Chorazin. Woe unto thee, Bethsaida.\"\n\n\"But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at\nthe day of judgment than for you.\"\n\n\"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought\ndown to hell.\"\n\n\"But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon\nat the day of judgment, than for you\" (Matt. XI:20-24; Luke X:13-15).\n\nIn more temperate language He bewails the coldness and hostility of\nJerusalem.\n\n\"How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen\ngathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?\" (Matt.\nXXIII:37; Luke XIII:34. See also Luke XIX:41, 42; Luke XI:31, 32).\n\nThe reason why Jesus' miracles produced no lasting effect on the Jews\nhas already been indicated. They expected their Messiah to show them\nmiracles as proof of his claims. But this Messiah must be one of their\nown creation preaching the doctrines which they wished him to preach.\nAll the miracles in the world would not have convinced them that Jesus\nwas the true Messiah, so long as He offered them only a heavenly\nkingdom. On the other hand, if He had promised them an earthly kingdom,\nthey would have acclaimed these same miracles which He did, as\nindubitable proofs of His Messiahship. In this respect they differ not\nat all from many modern professed followers of Jesus. They follow such\nparts of His teaching as happen to suit their own ideas or prejudices,\nand calmly ignore other parts, equally explicit and binding, which do\nnot fit in with their scheme of life. (See Hypocrisy or Truth, _infra_.)\n\nThe miracles and, even more, the apparent faith of Jesus in their\nevidentiary value, form serious stumbling blocks in the way of those who\nrevere Jesus as the greatest \"Son of Man\"--unequaled in the simplicity\nand unselfishness of His character and in the sublimity of His\nteaching--but free from the tawdry tinsel of supernaturalism, which is\nthe usual stock-in-trade of leaders of religious sects. Mohammedanism\nseems to be the only great religion which has resisted the temptation to\nascribe to its founder, either divine parentage or the power to perform\nsupernatural acts.\n\nThe attribution to Jesus of the Holy Ghost as His father need cause no\ndifficulty, by reason of the facts set out under sub-head \"Conception,\"\n_supra_.\n\nBut as regards the miracles, it is true that few of them have much\nscientific value as evidence of the intervention of supernatural powers\nin their occurrence. For instance, Matthew records nineteen specific\nmiracles, of which only one is attested to by all the three other\nevangelists, five are attested to by one beside himself, twelve by two,\nand one by himself alone. Of the nineteen, five are events--stilling the\ntempest--walking on the waters, two feeding the multitude, and one the\nblasting of the unfortunate fig tree, which did not bear fruit out of\nseason. Of the remaining fourteen, one is a lunatic, one has a withered\nhand, one is dumb, one is a leper, two have palsy, three are blind, one\nhas fever, one an issue of blood, two are possessed of devils, and the\nailment of Jairus' daughter is not specified. Without examining each in\ndetail, it may be said generally that these accounts are very indefinite\nas to exact times and places, names of persons cured, or by friends or\nrelatives, and other details, by which the story might be verified. From\nthe insufficient data furnished, it would, for instance, have been\nalmost impossible for a person, starting to investigate these miracles\nimmediately after Jesus' death to have asserted that any particular\nmiracle did not occur, although he could not find a single witness to\nany of them. Even the names of the disciples present are given only in a\nfew instances. It is also to be regretted that practically all of the\npersonal cures, as is the case with more modern miracle workers, fall\nwithin that class of afflictions where ignorance, suggestion,\nsimulation, conscious or unconscious, etc., can so easily confuse the\nresult. If some of these latter-day healers would only go to an old\nsoldiers' home and supply some missing arms and legs, the \"doubting\nThomases\" would be more ready to concede their possession of\nsupernatural powers.\n\nBut, notwithstanding all this, the four Gospels are so permeated with\nthese miraculous doings that it would be almost denying them any\ncredibility at all, to claim that Jesus and His apostles did not believe\nthat He performed miracles, and that these miracles were proof of His\nclaim to the Messiahship. It can only be said that Jesus, great as He\nwas, could not entirely escape the influence of the times in which He\nlived.\n\n[28] Here again Jesus makes clear His antipathy to churchly ceremonies\nand pharisaical formalism. No ceremony marks the joining of His\ndisciples. He says to them, \"Follow me,\" and they leave everything and\nfollow Him. No more is necessary to make them members of His band. So,\nno rite, no ceremony marks the choosing or appointing of the twelve\napostles, or bishops, as they would now be called. There is no laying on\nof hands, no formal induction or installation into office, no clothing\nthem in peculiar vestments, or sacerdotal robes, or other visible\ninsignia of their office or rank. Nor are they given any authority or\npre-eminence over their fellow disciples. Nothing could have been more\nforeign to Jesus' ideas than the establishment of a priestly hierarchy.\nThe instructions as to their preaching are of the simplest--\"the kingdom\nof heaven is at hand.\" No creeds, no theological dogmas are to be\nimpressed on their hearers. But the necessity of their doing good\nworks--healing the sick, etc.--is emphasized. With Jesus works always\nwere of more value than words. The admonition to travel simply, without\nmoney or extra raiment, and to depend on the hospitality of the people\namong whom they came, reminds us of the practice of the itinerant\nmissionaries of frontier days in our own country.\n\nMatthew's account is the only one containing the verse: \"Think not that\nI am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace but a sword\"\n(Matt. X:34). This has often been cited, warped from its context, as\nmeaning that Jesus sanctioned war as a means of spreading His religion.\nBut nothing is more contrary to the whole spirit of His teaching and\nmany express utterances. When His disciples would have Him call down\nfire from heaven to consume those who would not receive Him, He \"rebuked\nthem\" and said: \"For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives,\nbut to save them\" (Luke IX:56). In this chapter from Matthew, Jesus is\npredicting that the spread of His Gospel will set individual against\nindividual (even in the same family), and finally nation against nation,\nand that, owing to the weakness of human nature, this would lead to\nindividual contests and to national contests. Results well justified His\nprophecy. So long as the Christians were in the minority, they preached,\nand, to some extent, practiced the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount.\nBut when they became the majority, the sword and torch and the fires of\nthe Inquisition were their favorite arguments in converting recalcitrant\nheathen.\n\n[29] Moderation was the keynote of Jesus' character. Excess in any\ndirection was contrary to His principles. He had no sympathy with either\nthe zealot or the ascetic. He condemned as well the faster and the\nprohibitionist as the glutton and the wine-bibber. He was most\ndemocratic in His daily intercourse with others. He dined one day with\npublicans and sinners, and the next with a Pharisee, notwithstanding His\nbitter antagonism to the Pharisees as a sect (Luke XI:37; XIV:1). This\nmoderation shows itself in the charity of His judgments of others, as in\nthe case of the woman taken in adultery (John VIII:3-11), the parable of\nthe Prodigal Son (Luke XV:11). \"Judge not that ye be not judged\" (Matt.\nVII:1) and elsewhere. When He is asked to name the first great\ncommandment, He does not choose any of the ten stringent provisions of\nthe Old Testament, but expresses His ideas in the milder forms: To love\nGod, and to love thy neighbor as thyself (Matt. XXII:36-40; Mark\nXII:28-31).\n\n[30] The prophets of the Old Testament had long before the birth of\nJesus inveighed against the disposition among the Jews to magnify _acts\nof worship_--religious rites and ceremonies--as pleasing to God and\nindicative of holiness in the participant.\n\n\"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?--saith the\nLord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed\nbeasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of\nhe goats.\"\n\n\"Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the\nnew moons and _Sabbaths_, the calling of assemblies; I cannot away with;\nit is iniquity, even _the solemn meeting_. Your new moons and your\n_appointed feasts_ my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am\nweary to bear them.\"\n\n\"Learn to _do well_; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the\nfatherless, plead for the widow\" (Isaiah I:11-17).\n\n\"Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands\nof rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, _the\nfruit of my body for the sin of my soul_? He hath showed thee, O man,\nwhat is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly,\nand to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God\" (Micah VI:7, 8).\n\n\"For I desired mercy and not _sacrifice_; and the knowledge of God more\nthan burnt offerings\" (Hosea VI:6).\n\nBut the Jews had not heeded the admonitions of their prophets, and, in\nthe time of Jesus, their religion, under the dominating influence of\nthose zealous laymen--the scribes and Pharisees--had become permeated\nwith the dry-rot of formalism. Prayers, fastings, rites and ceremonies\nhad become all important, like the \"burnt offerings of bullocks,\" \"the\nblood of bullocks,\" the \"incense\" and \"vain oblations\" of earlier days.\n\"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of\nmint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier matters of the\nlaw, judgment, mercy and faith\" (Matt. XXIII:23). Their conception of\nthe Lord was that of the Mosaic times--a jealous Deity to be placated by\nsacrifices, and whose favor was to be won by external worship, and not\nby inward purity of heart. \"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,\nhypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter,\nbut within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee,\ncleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside\nof them may be clean also\" (Matt. XXIII:25, 26).\n\nThe simple, unceremonial religion which Jesus taught, a living force\nanimating each act of one's daily life, nourished by secret prayers in\none's chamber, manifesting itself by unobtrusive acts of mercy, not by\npublic prayers, fastings and religious services, was the direct\nantipodes of the ceremonial formalism then dominant among the Jews.\nJesus early recognized this antagonism, and lost no opportunity to\ncombat this, the greatest obstacle to the spreading of His ideas. He can\nuse no words too bitter in denouncing those whom He considers the\ncorrupters of the true worship of God (Matt. XXIII; Mark XII:38-40; Luke\nXX:46, 47; XI:42-44). To persons deeply imbued with religious feeling,\nhypocrisy is the cardinal sin. \"Ye hypocrites\" is His constant term of\nreproach for the scribes and Pharisees.\n\nNow, the observance of the Sabbath was the keystone in the arch of\nformalism which the Pharisees had erected. They had filled the day with\nreligious ceremonies. They had surrounded it with minute restrictions\nand prohibitions, so that even the healing of the sick on that day was\nconsidered by them unlawful. Probably their objection to the disciples\npicking and eating corn was not based so much on that fact, as on the\niniquity of Jesus and His disciples taking a pleasant walk through the\nfields and country on the Sabbath. As Macaulay said of the Puritans,\nthey hated bear baiting, not so much because it gave pain to the bear,\nas because it gave pleasure to the spectators.\n\nThis Sabbath was to Jesus a travesty on the true worship of His Father,\nand met His instant and repeated condemnation. He intentionally and\nopenly violated its laws, and challenged the Pharisees to defend their\nposition. As in the case of prayer, He again defined His Father's\nattitude as caring nothing for these outward observances. \"I will have\nmercy and not sacrifice\" (Matt. XII:7). The weighty matters of the law\nare \"judgment, mercy and faith\" (Matt. XXIII:23). In the expressive\nlanguage of the Old Testament His \"soul hateth\" their Sabbaths and\nappointed feasts and solemn assemblies. They were a \"trouble\" to Him and\nHe was \"weary to bear them.\" \"When ye make many prayers, I will not\nhear\" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 15). Jesus sums up His conception of the Sabbath\nin one of His pregnant sentences, \"the Sabbath was made for man, and not\nman for the Sabbath\" (Mark II:27; Luke VI:5).\n\nIf Jesus were on earth today, He would make our Sunday a day of cheerful\nrest. Children would rejoice in it, learn to love it, instead of its\nbeing to them (more formerly than now) a day of penance and gloom, with\ntheir forced attendance on a distasteful Sunday school, to study creeds\nand catechisms, not suited to their immature years. Attendance at\n\"church\" would be a matter of minor importance, to be determined by each\none for himself. The desire to worship could be satisfied without these\npublic assemblies, for \"where two or three are gathered together in my\nname, there am I in the midst of them\" (Matt. XVIII:20).\n\nBut the significant deliberation of the day, the only one important\nbefore God, would be the marking it out as the day especially for the\ndoing of deeds of mercy. Much more righteous in the sight of the Lord\nwould be the man who had spent the day in hunting, fishing or other\ninnocent recreation, but yet had one good deed to his credit, than he\nwho had spent the whole day in religious exercises, and given his \"tithe\nof mint and anise and cummin,\" but had not helped, or comforted, or made\nhappier a single fellow human being. Jesus would say with the poet:\n\n    \"_Count that day lost, whose low descending sun\n    Views from thy hand, no worthy action done._\"\n\n[31] Jesus had already told the disciples of His approaching death and\nresurrection (Matt. XVI:21, 22; Mark VIII:31; Luke IX:22).\n\n[32] Jesus probably spoke to His disciples in the veiled language so\noften used by Him, since it is clear that His disciples, down to the\nlast days in Jerusalem, had not accepted the idea of His immediate\nbodily death.\n\n\"But they understood not that saying and were afraid to ask Him\" (Mark\nIX:32).\n\n\"And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from\nthem, neither knew they the things that were spoken\" (Luke XVIII:34; see\nMatt. XXIV:3).\n\nIt is probable that up to the hour of the Crucifixion many of the\ndisciples still clung to the hope that Jesus would exert His miraculous\npowers to confound His enemies and establish an earthly kingdom.\n\n\"They thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear\" (Luke\nXIX:11).\n\nThey quarreled among themselves as to who should have precedence in this\nkingdom.\n\n\"And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be\naccounted the greatest\" (Luke XXII:24).\n\n[33] None of these multitudes seem to have been on hand a few days later\nto ask Jesus' release from Pilate (Matt. XXVII:15, 17, 22, 23).\n\n[34] This cleansing of the temple is related by John as one of Jesus'\nfirst acts, immediately after the marriage in Cana (John II:14-17).\n\n[35] There is a marked difference between these latest utterances of\nJesus and His first preaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Then He was\nenthusiastic, filled with the hope of converting the Jews, and\nestablishing His Father's spiritual kingdom on earth. Now He is\ndisappointed, realizing that His death is near, that His religious\nteachings have been rejected by practically all of His people, and that\nHe will leave behind Him a mere handful of followers, few, if any, of\nwhom yet understand the true meaning of His religion. The spirit of the\nSermon on the Mount is love for one another, kindness active in\nevery-day life, charity for others' shortcomings, leniency in judging\nand punishing offenders. But His later sayings abound in bitter censure\nof the Pharisees and others who have thwarted His work, of denunciation\nof all evil-doers, of promises of reward to His followers, and of\npredictions of severe punishment for those who reject His teachings.\n\nThus in the Sermon on the Mount He says:\n\n\"Blessed are the merciful; for they shall obtain mercy\" (Matt. V:7).\n\n\"Blessed are the peace-makers; for they shall be called the children of\nGod\" (Matt. V:9).\n\n\"Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest\nthat thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before\nthe altar and go thy way; first be reconciled with thy brother, and then\ncome and offer thy gift\" (Matt. V:23, 24).\n\n\"Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him\"\n(Matt. V:25).\n\n\"But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite\nthee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also\" (Matt. V:39).\n\n\"But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do\ngood to them that hate you\" (Matt. V:44).\n\n\"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father\nforgive your trespasses\" (Matt. VI:15).\n\n\"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all\nthese things shall be added unto you\" (Matt. VI:33).\n\n\"Judge not, that ye be not judged\" (Matt. VII:1).\n\n\"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then\nshalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote of thy brother's eye\" (Matt.\nVII:5).\n\n\"Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do\nye even so to them; for this _is the Law and the prophets_\"\n(Matt:VII:12).\n\nAs to those who heard His sayings and did them not, He speaks no\nstronger condemnation than to compare them to the foolish man who built\nhis house on the sand (Matt. VII:24-27).\n\nCompare with these the following excerpts from His later preachings:\n\n\"Verily I say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the\nkingdom of God before you\" (Matt. XXI:31).\n\n\"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on\nwhomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder\" (Matt. XXI:44).\n\n\"Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take\nhim away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and\ngnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen\" (Matt.\nXXII:13,14).\n\n\"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites\" (Matt. XXIII:13,\n14, 15).\n\n\"Ye fools and blind\" (Matt. XXIII:17, 23, 24).\n\n\"Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful\noutward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all\nuncleanness\" (Matt. XXIII:27).\n\n\"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation\nof hell?\" (Matt. XXIII:33).\n\n\"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth\"\n(Matt. XXIII:35).\n\n\"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in\nthose days\" (Matt. XXIV:19).\n\n\"Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other\nleft\" (Matt. XXIV:40).\n\n\"And shall cut him asunder and appoint him his portion with the\nhypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth\" (Matt.\nXXIV:51).\n\n\"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness; there shall\nbe weeping and gnashing of teeth\" (Matt. XXV:30).\n\n\"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the\ndevil and his angels\" (Matt. XXV:41).\n\n[36] It is impossible for one not versed in the subtleties of Jewish\nreligious ceremonies to understand the references in the four Gospels to\nthe feast of unleavened bread and of the Passover. They do not seem to\ncorrespond with the somewhat intricate ritual given in the Old Testament\n(Ex. XII:1-20). If the Crucifixion occurred in the year A.D. 33, as the\nauthorities generally agree, then the feast of the Passover began on the\nevening of Friday, the day after this supper and the day of the\nCrucifixion. This agrees with John's statements (John XIII:1; XVIII:28;\nXIX:14-31). But the other three Gospels speak of the supper on Thursday,\nas being the eating of the Passover.\n\n[37] This strife is also given by Luke as of an earlier date (Luke\nIX:46). (See also Matt. XVIII:1; Mark IX:34; Mark X:35; Matt. XX:24).\n\n[38] Mark tells of a \"certain young man\" who followed Jesus, until he\nwas driven away by the soldiers (Mark XIV:51, 52). He is not identified,\nand apparently appears only at this place in the four Gospels.\n\n[39] The motive of Judas in this transaction seems destined to remain an\nunsettled controversy. Was he simply a traitor, seeking to sell his Lord\nand Master for a price? Or was he a religious zealot, trying to force\nJesus' hand? It has been already noted that the apostles, even at this\nlate date, were expecting the immediate coming of Jesus' kingdom on\nearth and the installation of themselves into the chief offices of that\nkingdom (Luke XIX:11; XXII:24). Did Judas, in his supreme confidence in\nhis Master's supernatural powers, feel convinced that, if once a contest\nwere precipitated between the Pharisees and Jesus, the latter would\nexert those powers and utterly confound His enemies?\n\nThe most inexplicable thing in the whole transaction is its utter\nfutility, both on the side of Judas and of the Pharisees also. On other\nvisits to Jerusalem, Jesus had kept His movements more or less secret\n(John VIII:59; XI:54). But on this last visit there was not the\nslightest attempt at concealment. His entry into Jerusalem was attended\nby a great multitude, shouting and acclaiming Him (Matt. XXI:1-10; Mark\nXI:1-10; Luke XIX:30-40). His cleansing of the temple was an open and\npublic act (Matt. XXI:12-14; Mark XI:15; Luke XIX:45, 46). Every day He\ntaught openly in the temple (Luke XIX:47; XXII:53). The chief priests,\nelders and Pharisees were present at His teachings and argued with Him\n(Matt. XXI:23; Mark XI:27; Luke XX:1). They had already employed spies\nto follow Jesus in His preaching and note any seditious or heretical\nutterances (Luke XX:20). Every night Jesus and His twelve apostles went\nout to Bethany, coming back to Jerusalem in the morning, and the\nmovements of so numerous a company could not have been concealed (Matt.\nXXI:17, 18, 20). Jesus must have been well-known in Bethany, both\nbecause of His long friendship with the family of Lazarus, and because\nof the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead (John XI:45; XII:9).\nWhile in Bethany, Jesus and the apostles were entertained publicly at a\nsupper in Simon's house (John XII:2; Matt. XXVI:6). So far as an\nidentification of Jesus was concerned, or any assistance in making His\narrest, Judas' services were entirely useless to the Pharisees, and\nthere was no occasion for spending money on him. The most conclusive\nevidence on this point is that of Jesus Himself. All three of the\nsynoptics agree that Jesus protested against a multitude with their\nswords and staves coming out to take Him in the night-time, as though He\nwere a thief or a fugitive from justice. As He says, \"I sat daily with\nyou teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me\" (Matt. XXVI:55;\nMark XIV:49; Luke XXII:53). According to John, who is considered the\nmost accurate of the evangelists on the events of this last week, Judas\ndid not kiss Jesus or make any other identification of Him. On the\napproach of the band, Jesus comes forth and says, \"Whom seek ye? They\nanswered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And\nJudas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them\" (John XVIII:5). The\nPharisees seem to have had some trouble in procuring the proof of Jesus'\nheretical sayings (Matt. XXII:15-16; Mark XII:13; Luke XI:54; Luke\nXX:20; Matt. XXVI:60). If Judas had offered to furnish this evidence,\nthe bargain with the Pharisees would be understandable.\n\nAs to the pecuniary side of the transaction, Matthew is the only one who\nstates that a bargain was made for a definite sum of money. According to\nthe account of Mark and Luke, Judas volunteered his services, and the\nPharisees \"promised to give him money.\" John does not mention any money\npaid or to be paid, although he is especially bitter against Judas (John\nVI:64, 70, 71; XII:6; XIII:2, 27). Now, Judas was the treasurer of the\napostles' company and carried the bag (John XIII:29; XII:6). If avarice\nwere his motive, it would seem strange that he would give up this post\nand the possibilities of peculation which it offered, for the small sum\nof money he would get from the Pharisees.\n\nMoreover, the fact that, immediately after the conviction of Jesus,\nJudas tendered back the money to the Pharisees, and, when they refused\nit, cast it down in the temple, and went out and hanged himself, tends\nstrongly to support the theory that he was a misguided zealot (Matt.\nXXVII:3-6).\n\nAgainst this is the unanimous evidence of the Gospels that he was the\nbetrayer of Jesus, and that Jesus recognized and branded him as such.\n\n[40] This gathering was presumably the Sanhedrim, the high council of\nthe Jews. It had jurisdiction to try and sentence Jews charged with\nheresy--\"corruptors,\" blasphemers of the temple, destroyers of the true\nworship, etc. It could not, however, execute a sentence of death (John\nXVIII:31). In such cases it was necessary that the sentence be confirmed\nby the Roman tetrarch, procurator, or other governor of the country, and\nthe execution of the sentence be carried out by Roman soldiers.\n\n[41] This was a trial for heredoxy under the Jewish law upon two\ncharges, one for blasphemy of the temple, the other for blasphemy of\nGod. Either, if proved, would warrant a sentence of death. The first was\nvery near the truth. The charge was, \"I am able to destroy the temple of\nGod, and to build it in three days.\" Jesus' exact words were, \"Destroy\nthis temple, and in three days I will raise it up\" (John II:19). The\nJews did not understand His hidden meaning that He meant the death of\nHis body and its resurrection in three days (John II:20, 21). The other\ncharge was in one sense true, for Jesus had spoken of Himself as the\n_Son_ of God. But He had not used these words in the sense attributed to\nHim by the Pharisees, that He was himself God, or the equal of God. But,\ncoupled with His failure to deny these charges, they formed a sufficient\nlegal basis, under the Jewish law, for His conviction and sentence.\n\n[42] The high priest evidently shifted his ground of attack when he\nbrought Jesus before Pilate. The main charge here against Jesus was that\nHe had claimed to be king of the Jews, something that had not appeared\nin the proceeding before the Sanhedrim. This was more of a political\nthan a heretical crime, and one more likely to arouse the suspicion and\nhostility of the Romans. Jesus was entirely innocent of this crime, for\nHe had never claimed for Himself an earthly kingdom. This, and the\ncharges of heresy, which probably were also presented, did not make much\nimpression on Pilate. He evidently did not think that Jesus had done\nanything deserving a sentence of death, and probably regarded the whole\nmatter as one of those vexatious religious quarrels among the Jewish\nsectaries which were constantly arising to trouble the Roman governors\nof Jewry, and in which they had no interest or sympathy with either side\nof the controversy. But he found himself in a difficult position. This\ndemand for Jesus' sentence was backed by all of official Jewishdom, and\nthey presented His legal condemnation by the Sanhedrim. While Pilate was\nnot absolutely bound to approve this sentence of the Sanhedrim, yet his\nrefusal to do so would deeply offend the leaders of the Jewish people\nand quite possibly involve him in serious trouble with the authorities\nat Rome. Seeking a way out of this dilemma, he bethought himself of the\ncustom of freeing a prisoner at the feast of the Passover. He tried to\ninduce the multitude to demand the release of Jesus, and, if there had\nbeen any difference in opinion, would undoubtedly have declared the vote\nin favor of Jesus. But the people were unanimous in their demand for the\nrelease of Barabbas. Then, only, he consented to confirm Jesus'\nsentence, and attempted publicly to shift the moral responsibility for\nhis act to the Jewish populace.\n\n[43] There seems to be some question as to whether Antipas was not\ngovernor at this time, instead of Herod (Matt. II:19).\n\n[44] This Annas (or Hanan) is supposed by some authorities to be the\n\"power behind the throne,\" the chief instigator of the proceedings\nagainst Jesus.\n\n[45] Pilate evidently inflicted this punishment--milder than death--in\nthe hope that it would pacify the Jews, and they would permit him to let\nJesus escape the extreme penalty of crucifixion.\n\n[46] From this narrative it would seem that, for one night, the\nsepulchre was unsealed and unguarded.\n\n[47] It seems that it was a custom to give criminals this drink in order\nto, in a measure, stupefy them and lessen the pains of the crucifixion.\n\n[48] This was probably the usual custom, unless the criminal was too\nweak to bear the burden.\n\n[49] No two of these superscriptions on the cross exactly agree.\n\n[50] None of the other Gospels mention Jesus' mother or any of the\napostles as being present at the Crucifixion, and all agree that the\nwomen stood \"afar off.\"\n\n[51] These were precautions, probably usual, to ensure that the\ncriminals were really dead.\n\n[52] These instructions are contrary to those given to His disciples in\nHis life-time. He told them expressly not to go to the Gentiles (Matt.\nX:5) and said nothing about their baptizing either Jews or Gentiles. No\ntime or definite place is assigned for this last appearance of Jesus.\n\n[53] Mark does not tell of any appearance of Jesus to the apostles in\nGalilee.\n\n[54] The name Cleopas does not appear in the list of the twelve apostles\n(Matt. X:2-4).\n\n[55] The story of the resurrection and ascension would have even less\nchance of acceptance by an impartial tribunal, than that of the\nmiraculous conception, or of the birth at Bethlehem. The accounts in the\nfour Gospels, together with that in the Acts, are such a hopeless mass\nof confusion and contradiction that scarcely a single fact can be\nextricated, on which they all agree.\n\nAs to the time, the place, and the witnesses of the ascension, they are\nentirely at variance.\n\nJesus had, in His lifetime, fixed Galilee as the place of meeting His\napostles after His rising from the dead (Matt. XXVI:32; Mark XIV:28). So\nthe angel, or the \"young man,\" at the tomb tells the women that Jesus\nhas gone into Galilee, where His disciples should see Him, \"as He said\nunto you\" (Matt. XXVIII:7; Mark XVI:7).\n\nNow, Matthew's account is the only one of the five originals which says\nanything about Jesus appearing to His disciples in Galilee. And,\naccording to Matthew, this was the only time and place that He did\nappear to any one, except the two Marys (Matt. XXVIII:9, 10), and their\nstatements were not believed by the apostles (Mark XVI:11; Luke\nXXIV:11).\n\nAccording to Matthew, at a time not specified, Jesus appeared to the\neleven on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. XXVIII:16), \"and when they saw\nHim, they worshipped Him; _but some doubted_\" (Matt. XXVIII:17). Now,\nfrom this it is apparent: first, that Jesus did not appear in His\nnatural, earthly form, for then the eleven would at once have recognized\nHis identity; and, second, that we have no means of telling just how\nmany of the eleven would have testified to this being an appearance of\nthe true Jesus, since \"some\" doubted.\n\nJohn's original Gospel warrants appearances of Jesus, first, to Mary\nMagdalene, the other Mary not being with her (John XX:15, 16, 17);\nsecond, an appearance on Sunday evening to the apostles, except Thomas\n(John XX:19); third, an appearance eight days later to all the eleven\napostles (John XX:26). Nothing is said about any ascension.\n\nJohn's Chapter XXI, which, as has been said, appears clearly to have\nbeen a later addition to the original Gospel, relates an appearance of\nJesus in Galilee, which is materially different from that of Matthew.\nThe appearance is not on a mountain, but on the shores of the sea of\nTiberias, and, instead of the eleven apostles being present, there were,\nat most, only seven, including Nathaniel of Cana (John XXI:2). All of\nthem have considerable trouble in recognizing Jesus (John XXI:4, 12).\nNothing is said by Jesus about baptizing, or preaching to, the Gentiles,\nbut, on the contrary, Jesus tells Peter to feed \"my sheep,\" or \"my\nlambs\" (John XXI:15, 16, 17). Nothing is said about any ascension of\nJesus into heaven.\n\nThe Gospels of Mark and Luke, the original Gospel of John, and the Acts,\nall agree in fixing the after-death appearances and ascension of Jesus\nin Jerusalem or its neighborhood (Luke XXIV:50; Acts I:12). Apparently\nthe apostles remained for some time in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion\n(possibly for forty days, Acts I:3; II:1), until they separated and\n\"went forth and preached everywhere\" (Mark XVI:20). In the Acts it is\nsaid that Jesus \"commanded\" them to remain in Jerusalem, until the gift\nof the Holy Ghost should be sent to them (Acts I:4).\n\nIt is evident, in all these accounts, that the apostles had never\nunderstood, or had entirely forgotten, the predictions of Jesus in His\nlifetime that He would rise from the dead (Matt. XVI:21; XVII:23; XX:19;\nMark VIII:31; IX:31; X:34; Luke IX:22; XVIII:33). They were not\nexpecting any resurrection. They were not waiting at the tomb for it to\noccur, and, by the unanimous testimony of all the writers, they showed\nthe greatest surprise and incredulity at the first reports of Jesus'\nappearance alive (Matt. XXVIII:17; Mark XVI:11, 13; Luke XXIV:11, 16,\n37, 41; John XX:9, 14, 25).\n\nFurthermore, it is also evident that Jesus, in these appearances, must\nhave assumed some form or shape different from His natural earthly body.\nOtherwise His intimate friends and associates could not have been in\nsuch uncertainty about recognizing His identity.\n\nThus Matthew says that when He appeared to the eleven \"some doubted.\"\nBut if He had appeared in His natural form, how could any of the\napostles have doubted as to whether the apparition was He or some other\nperson?\n\nAccording to Mark, the apostles questioned the accuracy of the report by\nMary and the two disciples that they had seen Jesus (Mark XVI:13, 14).\n\nLuke relates that Jesus spent a considerable portion of one day with two\nof the disciples, and joined them at their evening meal. But they did\nnot recognize Him until He blessed some bread, brake it, and gave to\nthem, and then \"He vanished out of their sight\" (Luke XXIV:13-31). On\nHis first appearance in the midst of the apostles, \"they were terrified\nand affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.\" Even after He\nshowed them His hands and feet, their doubts were not dissipated, and,\nalthough He ate a piece of fish and some honey comb, it is not\nexplicitly stated that this removed all their uncertainty (Luke\nXXIV:36-43).\n\nAccording to John, Mary Magdalene, who was well acquainted with Jesus in\nHis lifetime, when she saw this apparition, \"knew not that it was\nJesus.\" She spoke to Him, \"supposing Him to be the gardener.\" He gives\nher a message to His disciples, and it is implied in the narrative that\nshe then recognizes Him as Jesus, although it is not explained how this\nchange came about (John XX:14-17). On His appearance to the apostles, He\nshows them His hands and feet, as though that were necessary to confirm\ntheir recognition of His identity. Thomas, apparently, will not trust to\nthe story of the other apostles; nor even to the personal appearance of\nJesus, until he has put his fingers into the prints on Jesus' hands and\nfeet (John XX:19-28). If Jesus had worn His earthly form these prints,\nwhich the apostles had never before seen, could not have aided in His\nidentification.\n\nThe account in John, Chap. XXI, shows that the seven assembled at the\nsea of Tiberias did not at first recognize Jesus, although one of them\nwas Thomas, who had already identified Him in Jerusalem. \"But the\ndisciples knew not that it was Jesus\" (John XXI:4). A little later it is\nsaid: \"And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou? Knowing\nthat it was the Lord\" (John XXI:12). No explanation is given as to how\nthis knowledge finally came to them.\n\nOut of this welter of confusion and contradictions, it is impossible to\nselect any one coherent, authoritative story. With equal warrant of\nauthority it may be asserted that He appeared to the apostles only in\nGalilee (Matt.) or never in Galilee, but only in Jerusalem (Mark, Luke,\nActs); that Jesus' first appearance was to the two Marys (Matthew), or\nwas to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark, John), or that He did not appear to\nthem at all, but two men \"in shining garments\" gave them the message to\nthe apostles (Luke); that He made a special appearance to two of the\napostles (Mark, Luke), or that He did not make this appearance (Matthew,\nJohn); that He never appeared to the apostles but once (in Galilee\naccording to Matthew, in Jerusalem, according to Mark and Luke), or that\nHe appeared to them twice in Jerusalem (John XX) and once in Galilee\n(John XXI), or that He was with the apostles in Jerusalem for forty\ndays, apparently in frequent communication with them (Acts I).\n\nAs to the ascension, it either occurred at some indefinite time on some\nunidentified mountain in Galilee and could be testified to by the\nunspecified number of the eleven who did not \"doubt\" (Matt.); or it\n(impliedly) occurred at some indefinite time on some unspecified shore\nof the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee, and was witnessed only by the seven\n(John XXI); or it occurred in Jerusalem at some unspecified time or\nplace, and, so far as appears, in the presence of no one (Mark XVI:19);\nor it occurred at Bethany at some indefinite time in the presence of\nsome unspecified number of His disciples (Luke XXIV:50, 51); or it\noccurred at least forty days after the Crucifixion on \"the mount called\nOlivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey,\" in the\npresence of persons who are only identified as \"they\" (Acts I); or, so\nfar as the Gospel of John is concerned, even including Chapter XXI, it\ncould fairly be claimed that He did not know of any specific ascension.\n\nWhile the exact date of the writing of the four Gospels and of the Acts\ncannot be determined, yet, in any event, they must have been composed\nwhen there were many living witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. If\nsuch a stupendous miracle as the ascension had occurred shortly after\nJesus' death, it is inexplicable that these historians should not have\nshown some practical unanimity as to the time, place and witnesses of\nthe event.\n\n[56] \"The attitude of slave-holders towards freedom in the abstract was\ngrotesque in its lack of logic; but the attitude of many other classes\nof men, both abroad and home, towards it was equally full of a grimly\nunconscious humor. The southern planters, who loudly sympathized with\nKossuth and the Hungarians, were entirely unconscious that their tyranny\nover their own black bondsmen made their attacks upon Austria's\ndespotism absurd.\" Roosevelt's Life of Benton, American Statesmen\nSeries, p. 275.\n\n[57] Compare his severe criticism of the abolition revolt from the Whig\nparty in 1844 with his own revolt from the Republican party in 1912.\nLife of Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 291.\n\n[58] If this had been written after the Spanish war, he might, with\nequal logic, have said the same thing of Porto Rico and the Philippines.\n\n[59] It would be interesting if President Roosevelt had cited some\ninternational controversies in which one nation did not claim that the\nmatter in dispute was \"of great importance\" and that there was no \"doubt\nas to which side was right.\"\n\n[60] From the context he evidently means here any shadow or pretense of\ntitle.\n\n[61] If, as Mr. Roosevelt concedes, the war with Mexico was\nunjustifiable, it is rather difficult to understand how the morals of\nthe people of the United States could have been improved by the\nconsciousness that they had unjustly slaughtered many thousands of\ninnocent Mexicans and robbed them of immense areas of their lands.\n\n[62] It is apparent that Matthew uses the word \"drinking\" in the sense\nof \"drinking wine,\" and undoubtedly Luke uses the word \"drink\" in the\nsame sense. In all, or nearly all, instances in the four Gospels where\nthese words are used in connection with eating or fasting, they refer to\nthe drinking of wine. As to the words \"wine,\" or \"fruit of the vine,\"\nwhen used in the Gospels, meaning some unfermented liquid, the\nundeviating practice of the early Christian churches in celebrating the\nHoly Communion with actual wine, stamps this claim as too absurd to\nmerit discussion. Undoubtedly Peter, James, John, Paul and the other\nfounders of the infant churches knew and followed the example of Jesus\nin prescribing wine as a part of this solemn ceremony. If the \"universal\ntradition of the church\" is not to be believed on this point, of what\nvalue is it on any other? It would be as sensible to claim that there\nhas never been any difference between Moslems and Christians in the use\nof wine, because, in truth, the orthodox Christian was never authorized\nto use anything but some unfermented drink that a Moslem might also have\nused.\n\n\n\n\n    Transcriber's notes:\n\n    The following is a list of changes made to the original.\n    The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.\n\n    _Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being af the house of David (Luke II:4).\n    _Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).\n\n    like Judaea, and that it was taken at least ten years after\n    like Jud\u00e6a, and that it was taken at least ten years after\n\n    [12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were \"amazed\", and,\n    [12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were \"amazed,\" and,\n\n    and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan\" (Matt. XIX:1).\n    and came into the coasts of Jud\u00e6a beyond Jordan\" (Matt. XIX:1).\n\n    (Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII! XXIII; XXIV; XXV).\n    (Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII; XXIII; XXIV; XXV).\n\n    the children of God; whosover, therefore, shall humble himself\n    the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself\n\n    sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7.) When prayers are regarded\n    sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded\n\n    International Cyclopaedia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.\n    International Cyclop\u00e6dia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.\n\n    of that day advised \"_panem et circenses_\"--food and amusement\n    of that day advised \"_panem et circenses_\"--food and amusement.","title":"The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":46242}