Messiah would be found in the House of David, notwithstanding that it also had lost its proud preeminence. But the idea, a challenge to the House of Aaron, was fiercely resented by the priestly class and their following, and when it took concrete form in Christ, they never rested until they murdered Him. And Mr. Robertson finds it difficult to see in Jesus of Nazareth an historical character. Let Mr. Robertson view the miraculous and wonder-stories in the gospels in any way he pleases, but if ever an historical atmosphere is found to fit the times it is here. These two parties, the one centring in Galilee with the House of David as their leaders, and the others in Jerusalem with the House of Aaron as their rulers loathed one another with unspeakable loathing. And certainly Christ did not mince matters with them. He plainly told them "Ye are of your father, the devil," and they as vehemently rejoined, "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil."* The scorn in the abusive, "thou are a Samaritan," shows the wisdom of His party in making certain that at all hazards He should be born in Bethlehem. And the same factions, with the same hate persist until the end, and only cease when as a nation the Jews no longer exist. Here, no doubt, we are in difficulty-an etymological one as to the precise meaning to be given to the word "Messiah." Josephus writes, "But now what did most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings how about this time one from their country should become governor of the habitable world." This material view would certainly seem to have held its own at least until the destruction of Jerusalem. With that awful event all was changed. In their misery they could never bring themselves to believe that God would wholly desert them, and their hope and confidence were that He would yet raise up a Messiah who would save them. And the divisions amongst themselves took new form. Whilst there *John viii. 44, 48.

were those who lived in expectation of another warrior Messiah, there were others who now turned their thoughts back to the Christ, the Messiah who had already come, and whose mission had been abundantly proved by the fulfilment of His teaching. These, abandoning their old war spirit, now saw in the promises of their prophets assurance not of an earthly kingdom, but of a spiritual one, exactly as Christ Himself had taught. And as these Christians were to be found in every part of the empire, we find the seed of the Church already sown far and wide, and ready with auspicious conditions to spring up and ripen into harvest. No doubt there would be much overlapping. Some would become absorbed into the general Jew population, which looked for a temporal Messiah, and in return some of such population would join their numbers. So they would be reinforced by many existing sects who found correspondence between the teaching of Christ and ideas they already held. We can well imagine that an Essene brotherhood might thus readily accept Christ as mouthpiece of many of their sentiments. Complications began to develop when the Gentile world was also impressed with the teaching of Christ and the story of His death. With the resulting divisions the pages of the epistles are filled. Gradually we are to see the Jew element lessening in numbers and importance, and with it a gradual change in the mental environment of the Church as a whole. Overmuch pagan thought had become assimilated with the teaching of Christ, and still the Jewish world was to find itself in antagonism to his brother man. Thus, in tracing the course of Christianity we are to mark its movement along these two well-defined channels: Judaism and teaching impressed on then existing cults, religions, and superstitions. As years pass fusion gradually takes place, and we find the nucleus of the Christian Church as we now have it. The focus of this converging thought was Alexandria. It is in Alexandria, so probably the home of Christ's boyhood, that we find the greatest

enthusiasm in tracing and recording every saying and tradition connected with our Lord. At the same time it was the home of every known faith of the world. All found representation there. Buddhist, Brahmin, Greek, Egyptian, Persian, and Jew had there congenial home."Out of Egypt have I called My Son" applied as much to the religion as a whole as to its first great founder. Thus the infinite diversity of beliefs found from the very first amongst the new disciples. But divided as they were in many things, they were one in their condemnation of the cruel murder of their Master and in acceptance of His new gospel that God Iwas the Father of all. As to this there has never been any uncertain sound, and this has made the religion of Christ the religion for mankind. Nor is the least of its triumphs that in his conception of "Allah the All-Merciful" the Mohammedan also shares in the magnificence of the revelation.

82. Thus we view the new ethical ideal as it at first makes its way, and now our interest centres in the manner in which it has been preserved and come down to us. We see our Lord a mighty teacher in Aramaic in Galilee, and we have His story told us in Greek and in Alexandria. The reason for this seems generally accepted, and we cannot do better than give it as found in The Bible Handbook,* which contains a mass of interesting and reliable information. Thus it says: "Our synoptics rest ultimately on oral tradition. Probably the Gospel-i.e. the facts about Jesus Christ-was preached by the apostles and their converts for twenty or thirty years before the need of committing it to writing was felt. The living voice was yet in the Church, the Spirit mighty in His operation; the written word marks a time when the first generation of Christians was passing away, and the Lord still delayed His coming. When the need arose material was ready in groups of narrative and discourse received from the apostles and, Eastern fashion, stereotyped by constant repetition by 'evan* Religious Tract Society.

gelists' and catechists." Such the account given on which the most illuminating commentary is the story as we have followed it. The almost year to year annals of this period found in Josephus give us a setting of reality in which we can place our Lord which otherwise would be almost impossible. In the gospels alone it is as some King Arthur of tradition that Christ moves, a figure of transcendent grandeur that dominates all time. And thus it is with the most orthodox of schools, we cannot see in our writings any authorized account direct from the pen of any first hand authority. Behind the accounts we cannot see any original from which they may have been translated. But what we do see is-Christ dead; Jerusalem destroyed; the race scattered; a passionate longing especially in Alexandria-to collect every fact, saying, or fragment that in any way related to Christ's life-work or mission on earth. We have already noted the mass of material which had been collected, and the industry with which it had been sifted, collated, and edited to establish our present canon, but at the same time we must not be surprised that certain discrepancies also crept in, which we cannot altogether harmonize with actual facts. Thus of especial interest is the exact date of Christ's birth. Amongst other matters, our chronology depends upon it. All agree that it was in the closing years of Herod's reign. He dead, and his son Archelaus claimed the succession. This was violently opposed by the Jews, and was occasion of a great tumultalmost a revolution. Urgently they petitioned Augustus not to accede to him, but to incorporate them as a Roman province instead. Augustus, having heard both sides, decided in favour of Archelaus, and appointed him king in room of his father Herod. For ten years he thus ruled and, with the one proviso that he remitted the tribute regularly to the Imperial treasury as an independent sovereign. But meantime he made himself so obnoxious to his subjects that once more they appealed to Caesar, and this time with

success. Archelaus was deposed, his property confiscated, and he banished to Vienna, whilst Judea was at last made a Roman province, as they desired. And this taking over of Judea as a Roman province, as we have seen, was a most important incident in the history of the Jews. Cyrenius, the President of Syria, superintended, and whilst Coponius was appointed their especial governor, he, Cyrenius, personally, as Josephus tells us, came into Judea to take account of their substance and to dispose of Archelaus' money. And we know the terrible commotion it caused, which was led by Judas of Galilee, who said that this taxation was no better than slavery. But all these incidents took place at the end of the reign of Archelaus, whilst in the account of St. Luke we find them classed with the birth of Christ and placed at the beginning. "And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed" (and this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria). "And all went to be taxed, every man into his own city." We cannot explain how this statement came to be made, and it was years after Herod's death that Cyrenius was made principal of Syria. But notwithstanding all this and though we have not a dozen words in the tongue in which Christ taught, yet we feel no want in the filling in of His picture or His teaching. And it is His teaching which has gone home. I know my opinion is of little value, but personally I am inclined to think that His story has thus come down to us with the express intention that we shall not dogmatize. As a whole, Christ is given to us, but would we emphasize any particular fact or saying on which to build some particular doctrine, we have not the materials. There is not one word which we can say has come down to us exactly as said, or one incident exactly as it occurred. And our version, translation of a translation, but accentuates this fact. But exactly as the teaching of the Old Testament in its enforcement of its great truths is altogether inde