in the Parable of Dives and Lazarus; but without pressing that parable into the argument, we find in Luke that Jesus says: "Woe unto you that ar rich, for ye hav "received your consolation." Nay, he brands wealth with the title, "the mammon of unrighteousness." In a Parable which is the despair of those who teach simple folk, he insists, that, as by a clever wrong a certain steward won friends, so each rich man by a clever use of wrongful possessions ought to buy friends who will receive him into everlasting habitations. Good news for medieval barons, enriched by rapine! By shovelling away wealth, they may buy treasures in heaven. Unless our narrators belie him, Jesus never warns hearers that to giv without a heart of charity does not prepare a soul for heaven nor "earn salvation;" and that selfish pre-speculation turns virtue into despicable marketing. To forgiv that we

may be forgiven, to avoid judging lest we be judged, to do good that we may buy extrinsic reward, to affect humility that we may be promoted, to lose life that we may gain it with advantage, ar precepts not needing a lofty prophet. But to return to the topic of wealth, the remarkable tale of a rich young man, narrated with close agreement in three Gospels, is quite decisiv. He asks: "What shall I do (besides keeping the command"ments of the second table) that I may inherit eternal "life?" Jesus replies: "Thou lackest one thing. If "thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast and dis"tribute to the poor, and thou shalt hav treasure in "heaven." This corroborates his aphorism, that no one can be his disciple, who does not forsake all that he hath. Thus it is not on the twelve apostles only that he lays this charge, but upon all who will buy the Pearl of Great Price, all who desire to win heaven as the paramount object, whatever the sacrifice. He does not say, "Rather "lose all your possessions than be false to your religious

"convictions," but "fling away your wealth, in order to "earn heavenly remuneration for different doctrin indeed.

your sacrifice:

a very

Some other tenets deserve notice. The doctrin of Life after Death is often named as eminently due to his teaching. In the theory of Paul (2 Tim. i. 10)—who had no historical knowledge of Jesus,-" Christ abolished "Death and brought Life and Immortality to light." Yet Paul must hav known that human immortality was a doctrin of the Pharisees, imported from abroad before Jesus was born. At most he could but establish it. But how? The Sadducees (we ar told) plied him with an objection thereupon he not only swept it away, but elicited immortality out of Jehovah's words to Moses, "I am the God of Abraham, &c. God is not the God of "the dead, but of the living." With good reason the multitude "were astonished at his doctrin." Hitherto, the words had been interpreted: "I am he, who, when "Abraham was alive, was God to Abraham." They must hav been thus accepted by Isaiah and Jeremiah, who understood Hebrew well. If the Supreme Ruler condescended to speak in the Hebrew language to Moses, he was sure to speak intelligibly to all the great spiritual minds of the Hebrew nation. Sadducees were not likely to be convinced by the new interpretation. Even Luke found something deficient; for, to complete the argument, he makes Jesus add: "for all (or, for they all) liv (or ar "alive) unto him." Unfortunately this reason assumes the very thing to be proved. Besides, the argument avails only to those who believe that Moses duly reported the very words of Jehovah. Moses, who did not knowingly teach immortality, is made the Mediator through whom immortality is to be learned! Undoubtedly Jesus, like the Pharisees and Essenes, always presumes an after-life for man. This is all that can justly be said.

A Hebrew doctrin, false and mischievous, dominated in early days, ascribing to the anger of God against sin calamity of whatever kind, whether defeat in war, failure of crops, or bodily disease :--a folly which mars many of the Hebrew psalms. As to some on whom the tower of Siloam fell, Jesus (in Luke) opposed this error; but he startles one by entirely adopting it, when he identifies the two phrases, Thy sins be forgiven thee, and Be thou healed of thy malady. But perhaps these words ar foolishly imputed, in the wish to glorify him. Nevertheless, if we accept the narrativs as substantially correct concerning his doctrin, there is much indeed to regret, much reason to wonder that thoughtful persons can approve. His vehement and frequent threat of a hell with unquenchable flames and undying worm, has above all things given vitality to this noxious doctrin, which darkens the character of God and hardens the hearts of men. From none of the other Christian writings could the dreadful idea of Eternal Sin, Eternal Despair and Eternal Agony be established. Therefor we must believe that it was a dominating idea characteristic of him,-as indeed, after him, of Mohammed. He threatens this doom to the simple townsfolk to whose conscience his message of "The Kingdom" did not commend itself:-a worse doom at the day of judgment than that of Sodom and Gomorrha. A preacher so dogmatic and so full of threat ought above all to be cautious in expression. With his enigmatic and hyperbolical style and precepts paradoxically framed, (such as, "Hate your father and mother for "my sake,") he must hav puzzled and revolted many hearers. A teacher with ordinary wisdom who expected docility and submission from simple folk, would know how dangerous ar hyperbolical and vague precepts. The writer whom we call Matthew gravely assures us that Jesus purposely made his teaching obscure, in order

to fulfil prophecy; lest the people be converted and he should heal them!! (Matt. xiii. 11--17.) How grave the danger of ambiguous precept, is disagreeably shown in his panegyric on those who hav made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. To this day it is debated whether he spoke figurativly or literally. For the latter an Origen could plead that the zeal which adopts the cruel letter may carry the gospel into Eastern harems from which a mere celibate Paul is excluded. Whether here also the fault is thrown on the stupidity of reporters, I wait to learn.

In his teaching is a still more fundamental unsoundness. He repels by rudeness or evasion the more educated inquirers who may approach him; and then solemnly thanks God that "HE had hidden these things (ie. the divine mission of Jesus? or his divine wisdom?) "from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto "babes. Even so, Father! for so it seemed good in thy "sight." Was he unaware that Reasons ar necessary to convince the wise and prudent? He demanded that his hearers should become babes, thus identifying Credulity with Faith. This rottenness at the core has been fatal to Christianity. Truth, even if nobly established at first, cannot maintain itself, if Credulity is consecrated as a virtue; but Fantasy overcrusts and smothers it, because Criticism is frowned down.

SECOND PART.

A TIME arrived, which, according to our three narrators, was critical to Jesus. Rumours favorable to him had thickened among the populace. He inquired of his apostles, what was the prevalent opinion. They replied: "Some think thee to be John the Baptist, others one of

"the old prophets, or Elijah" (brought back from heaven). “But whom think ye that I am?" is his further question to which Simon replied, "The Messiah of God." According to Matthew, Jesus hereon burst into the joyful utterance: "Blessed art thou, Simon son of "Jonah! for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, "but my Father which is in heaven." He proceeds to bestow on him the title Kefa (ROCK)—which we render by Peter or Cephas--and adds: "On this Rock will I "build my Church "--whether on Simon or Simon's confession is hotly debated :--" and the gates of Hades "shall not prevail against it." Mark and Luke ar here more concise but all three agree that after accepting Simon's avowal, Jesus strictly charged them to tell no man of it. Only one reasonable explanation here offers itself; for such a dialogue will not be ascribed to wanton fancy. Jesus, while despising the doctors and daring to denounce them, had (like them) great difficulty in defining how Messiah was to be discerned. Though inwardly believing himself to be the pre-destined One, he had never dared to utter the claim. If he even had a complete copy of the old prophets, to reconcile them was so hard, that doubt was perhaps inevitable. Naturally he wished others to enunciate his Messiahship; hence his eager delight and exultation when Simon made the bold avowal. Nevertheless, after a short interval, old doubts recurred, with painful misgivings. He was frightened at his own elation; therefor he forbad them to tell any one.

But the word, as an arrow, stuck deep in his side. From this era he began to ponder on an ambitious career, which must lead either to glorious triumph or to violent and ignominious death. He is consistently said to hav tried from this moment to prepare his disciples for the worst, often warning them of the fate in store for him.