Out of such documents no man can construct a tale claiming to be certain history-ascertained fact. The utmost that can be fairly asked or wisely undertaken, is, an account possible and not improbable. The three first Gospels, though full of tales that cannot reasonably be accepted as fact, and of facts that may justly be suspected as falsely colored, yet contain much beside which was hard to invent, and much which the writers would never hav willingly penned, had not a strong current of tradition floated it down to them as true. Such ar various small details which prima facie ar derogatory to Jesus.

Theodore Parker put forth the epigram, that it would take a Jesus to invent a Jesus: an epigram which has a measure of truth, but far less than he supposed. Every artist knows, that the more peculiar ar any man's features, the easier it is to caricature them. So, the more original a man's discourses and the more eccentric his conduct, the easier it is to interlard fictitious additions that shall be plausible. Given a first sketch of Jesus, and it needs no high genius to amplify and paint it up. Given an eccentric Jesus, time and oral tradition suffice for the genesis of a caricature, venerable to some, damaging with others. If any one can purge these narrativs of their dross, by all means let him do it, and that quickly : but to acknowledge that they ar full of false representations, yet to read them as sacred books, is "a mockery, "a delusion, and a snare."

Another topic here presses on us. The greater the

value of the discourses of Jesus and the wider the authority they were to exercise, so much the more urgent was the need of a well-authenticated primitiv version. Nothing of the sort has been bequeathed by him. He has left us to guess how the narrativs were framed, preserved, compiled. Can he possibly hav

foreseen the prominence which they were about to receive, and the malignant consequences in the far future of leaving his doctrin as matter of controversy?

Concerning the fourth gospel we may briefly say: (1) that it starts by contradicting the other three on a cardinal point, in representing the Messiahship of Jesus as notorious to Andrew, brother of Simon, before they became disciples of Jesus; (2) that it replaces demoniac cures chiefly by two stupendous miracles performed in Jerusalem under the immediate cognizance of the rulers, who in vain strove to confute them. If the first three writers had ever heard of them, they must hav recorded them. If they never heard of them, the tales ar fraudulent inventions. (3) The Greek style of the fourth gospel credibly fixes it to be the work of John the Elder, from whom we hav three epistles. The doctrin in both is that of the second century, not of the first. (4) By substituting the magnificent address and prayer in John xiv.-xvii. for the agony in the garden, he betrays his object to be, not historical truth, but the glorification of Jesus. (5) The tale of Thomas, if true, could not hav been omitted by the others. This also must hav been a wilful conscious fiction.

A learned Unitarian* tells us that all difficulties of the fourth gospel "fall away at once, when we note that "this gospel is not and does not intend to be a source of "information concerning the historical Jesus, but is a "profession and testimony of faith put forward a century "after his death."-How easy to say, does not intend to be! Forsooth, the writer did not wish readers to believe what he writes solemnly and earnestly! It is only a testimony of faith! Is it then matter of indifference to faith, whether the things told ar true or false? I respect

D

* Modern Review, July, 1881, p. 849.

the three first writers. I believe that, according to their faculties and culture, they aimed to write and propagate truth. If the fourth is regardless of truth and knowingly propagates false facts, surely we ought to warn the simple that he is base and fraudulent, not use smooth phrases that make light of pernicious delusion.

CHAPTER VIII.

JESUS OF NAZARETH.

FIRST PART.

SCARCELY was John thrown into prison, when a successor appeared who adopted John's own proclamation: "Repent "ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The recital of this formula is entitled: "preaching the Gospel

'(or good news) of the Kingdom," and still more concisely, "preaching the word" (Tóv Móyov-Mark ii. 2.) The new preacher was a young man of Nazareth, by name Joshua, (in Greek Jesus) but he assumed as his mystic title, "The Son of Man." Ezekiel in vision believed himself addressed by the phrase, "Oh Son of "Man," equivalent to Son of Adam, or mortal man. The prophecy called Daniel's represents one "like to a "Son of Man" coming in the clouds of Heaven in God's great day to receive universal dominion. Based on this was another prophetical book, which pretended to be written by Enoch, the seventh from Adam, and was accepted so widely as to deceive Jude, author of a Canonical Epistle. In this book Messiah is called both Son of Man and Son of God. Thus the title of Son of

Man was advantageously ambiguous. It could not be attacked as an assumption: for it was ostensibly humble. But if any one interpreted it magnificently, Jesus (unless the narrators wonderfully belie him) had no objection at all to that.

The first matter here needing notice, is, the prevalent ascription to him of miraculous power in healing the sick, especially (according to the superstition of the age) in casting out demons. To disentangle truth out of a mass of untrustworthy legends is (as above remarked) a task, to which at best we can but approximate. The following attempt at an outline givs certainly a possible solution; many will say,--one that is quite probable.

Much excitement had gone abroad, especially in the rural districts, through the preaching of John, who not only announced the kingdom of God to be nigh at hand, but added that one greater than himself would follow. Who could that be but Messiah? When therefor Jesus came forth, uttering the same note of warning, but accompanied by tones of comfort to the captiv and the prisoner, to the poor and the oppressed, he was readily believed to be the greater prophet foretold by John, and at once drew to himself a wide and eager audience. Reasons hav been given for believing that beyond the limits of Judaism a great deliverer was expected, who would relieve men's bodily diseases. In Jewish dialect, Messiah was to destroy all the works of the Devil; and in Jewish belief, such diseases were eminently Satan's work. Jesus in consequence found himself expected to open blind eyes and restore crippled limbs. One and another, avowing faith in his ability, implored him to heal them. Parents or kinsfolk brought to him paralytic patients, or pressed him to come and chase away fevers or epilepsy, and other maladies ascribed to demons.

That Jesus on many occasions reluctantly undertook

to work cures, is attested distinctly by statements which must hav been transmitted to the writers as fact; for none who believed in his power would forge reluctance for him. Sometimes, after effecting a cure, he strictly forbad the patient to disclose it; an unintelligible and misanthropic charge, as commonly understood. It admits of one reasonable explanation. Though he had been successful in the particular case, he yet had no confidence in his ability to repeat the cure, if a new case were brought, apparently alike, yet perhaps less tractable. On several occasions he emphatically says: "Thy faith "hath saved thee," as if disowning power in himself. He shuns the crowd, who beseech him for miraculous cure. He is often represented as marvelling at their faith. He repelled a Syrophoenician woman rather harshly, until overpowered by her faith. Further, when pressed to show some sign, i.e., some external display of his credentials from heaven, he severely rebukes the request, calling those who made it "an evil and "adulterous generation." If his words ar correctly reported, they necessarily imply that he made no pretension to miracles.

These statements ar not compatible with the theory that Divine Pity and Sympathy dictated the miracles of healing. (Indeed it cannot reasonably be believed that the Most High who leaves mankind at large to struggle against diseases unaided, was led by Pity to giv miraculous cure to a definit number of Jews in that one age.) But their very opposition to the popular theory givs to the statements an augury of truth. Evasiv as they appear, no one believing his miraculous power would hav originated them. By a still more formal deputation somewhat later he was asked for his authority. That must hav meant his "authority to use the high and "imperious tone of a prophet." Now if he had worked