and so likewise of the cup He did not get his

this do in remembrance of me; representing the blood shed for them. information from the gospels, or from the apostles. In respect of these matters he had never "conferred with flesh and blood." He means therefore, in the fullest sense, what he says, that he had the institution from the "Lord" himself, and so imparted it to his hearers.

But other parts of the record remained inextricably in discord with the new doctrine, and prominently the received account of the agony in the garden, and the judgment and death of Jesus. These were apparently narratives too much encumbered with detail to be easily interfered with by the hand of the tamperer, and he has left them alone to the overwhelming disallowance of the use that has been thought to be made of the death of Jesus. The very essence of an offering, and especially of such an offering as that in question, is that it should be made willingly. But we have the figure before us of the miserable victim, foreseeing his doom, writhing in terror as his hour approached, casting himself to earth, sweating "as it were great drops of blood," and piteously and repeatedly entreating that he might be let off; while the inexorable being who claimed the sacrifice, appointed by him "from the foundation of the world," turned a deaf ear to his cries, and mercilessly, according to his "determinate counsel," handed him over to his destroyers. Could what was thus extorted be looked upon as an offering? and what grace or merit is there to attribute to a victim, praying for his release and carried off by main force by his slaughterers? The reservation on his part that God's will should be done is certainly a saving clause, but what we are looking for is the willingness of the victim. He certainly desired to avoid his fate. What satisfaction could an offended deity find in compassing the death of one thus unwilling to die? And if the death had the import afterwards imputed to it, if Jesus suffered sacrificially for the sins of mankind, surely the circumstances connected with his judgment and execution should have been such as to mark the purpose and the character of his end. But they do nothing of the sort. The narrative is constructed in form to show that there was no such meaning as since alleged belonging to these events. At the trial there was no question of Jesus

He was

answering for the sins of the world. He had simply to answer for himself, according to the accusations raised against him by his enemies. The things laid to his charge involved no moral guilt, such as had to be expiated before the Almighty, even could such guilt be made to expand from Jesus to comprehend others. The aim is to show the nothingness of the accusations. The questions raised merely affected Jewish sentiment. Pilate therefore wished to refer the whole matter to the Sanhedrin, and when the populace clamoured for the execution, the judge, though yielding to them, as the story goes, solemnly pronounced the acquittal of the accused. thus not as the scapegoat sent forth burthened with the guilt of those who made him their substitute. He had no guilt whatever to bear judicially for himself or others. The thieves on the cross certified that he died thus guiltless. How we had our sins imposed upon him is therefore altogether inexplicable. Again, as to his death being accomplished sacrificially. Every element of a sacrifice was wanting to give it this character. There was no priest, there was no altar, there was no sacrificial knife, there was no ritualistic or religious ceremonial. Jesus died exactly as the thieves by his side died, on the usual stake appointed for criminals by the Pagan authority. The priests, if there were such, were the Roman soldiers, the altar was their crucifix, and the sacrificial instrumentality the nails driven into him to fix him on the stake. Who is to see in this that great offering to the Almighty now declared to have been enacted? Who is to trace in the agonizing cry of the victim, "My God, my God, WHY hast thou forsaken me?" the consciousness of the victim of the part he is said to have been playing, and in his dying groans "an offering" accepted by the Almighty, and coming up, forsooth, into his nostrils as a "sweet-smelling savour?" (Gen. viii. 21; Eph. v. 2). The dying thief, at his side, looking to him for deliverance, as it is stated, certainly was not relying on his atoning blood. He viewed him, as the evangelist puts it, as a great potentate coming to his kingdom, and asked to be remembered by him as such; and Jesus endorses the hope as thus expressed. And when he himself prayed for those guilty of his death, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," the Pauline terms

become absolutely excluded. How could forgiveness in reliance on the sacrificial death of Jesus be asked for the offenders, while in the same breath it was acknowledged they were ignorant that what they were perpetrating was a sacrifice?

The description offered of Jesus while in the flesh, is a matter surrounded with perplexities. Was he man, or was he God shown merely outwardly as man? Was he also the Jewish Messiah? In what manner were his pretensions supported? The details are so conflicting, that there is no method of threading the way through the tangled meshes of the story woven, but by concluding that the several representations made are due to the growth of advancing doctrines to which the scheme was subjected.

There were prior

The first aspect we have of Jesus, as I have shown, was that of a mere man in strict Jewish posture. That, I consider, was the original frame work of the story. histories current, to which, in the main, conformity had to be preserved, as Luke reveals to us. The incongruous details introduced must be attributed to accommodations representing later doctrine, and they come, probably, from the hand of a Gentile in connection with Christianity, while still in its Judaic form. The tables of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke must be of this order. No Jew, as I have already urged, aware of the absence for ages of all knowledge of the tribal distinctions, could have undertaken to trace the family of the carpenter Joseph backwards to David and Judah. Nor would such a one hope to impose upon those around him of his nation with such a statement. It was advanced in a Gentile circle by a Judaising Gentile. In like manner, no Jew would have made the mistake of assigning twelve thrones in the coming heavenly kingdom to the apostles, on which they should sit judging, or ruling over, the twelve tribes of redeemed Israel. To be an appropriate arrangement, the apostles should have been each of a separate tribe. But there is no attempt to show that they were thus distinguished or selected. In fact some of them were brothers, and therefore of the same tribe, if tribe there was, as Peter and Andrew, and James and John.

Jesus enters on his mission as an Essene convert to John,

undergoing baptism by him. Then he is seen apart from John prosecuting his ministry independently. He moves out of Essenism into a freer atmosphere of his own. He does not fast, he is under no restriction of diet, and mixes freely with the world around him in sociability. He proceeds to individualize himself, seeking to draw the regards of man upon himself personally. His people were to abandon all to follow him (Luke xviii. 22); whoever received him received him that had sent him (Mark ix. 37); whoever abandoned relatives or property for his sake and the gospel's, was to receive a hundred fold in this life, and eternal life in the world to come (Mark x. 29); whosoever confessed or denied him before men should be confessed or denied before the angels of God (Luke xii. 8, 9). He ventured to reform upon the Mosaic legislation, including even the decalogue, and proclaimed himself also "greater than the temple," and "Lord of the Sabbath day" (Matthew v. 21-48; xii. 6-8). He was some one standing above Solomon and Jonah (Luke xi. 31, 32).

We see him eventually presented as the Christ (Matt. xvi. 20; xxvi. 63; xxvii. 17-22; Mark ix. 41; Luke ii. 26-30), and, in some sense, the Son of God (Matt. xiv. 33; xvi. 13-17; xxvii. 40-54; Mark iii. 11, 12; v. 7; Luke iv. 3, 9, 41). He professes now that no one can have any knowledge of the Father but through him (Luke x. 22), and asserts that the distribution of the honours in the future state is to be in his hands, the kingdom to be then set up being his (Luke xxii. 30). These great pretensions are supported by the power of dealing with all things around him according to his will. He heals every sickness, remedies every infirmity, restores even life to the dead. He feeds multitudes on food created out of nothing; he subdues storms; walks on the sea as on dry land; is manifested in glory with the long departed Moses and Elias; rises from the dead; and ascends bodily into heaven.

But while all these things are said of Jesus, there are indications that the facts are devoid of any true foundations; that is, we discover in the incidents of the tale, that he could not have proclaimed himself as the Christ, or as the Son of God, or have performed the wonders attributed to him.

At an advanced period of his ministry, he is described as desiring to know whom men said he was. He is told that he

was taken by some to be John the Baptist (risen from the dead), by others, Elias, or Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets. Then he asks his disciples more closely whom they take him to be; and when Peter says, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," he blesses him, and declares, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Jesus, therefore, had hitherto never proclaimed himself; and when known, as is alleged, he enjoins it on his disciples, "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus, the Christ." In like manner, when discovered to be the Son of God by the unclean spirits, who had intelligence of the other world, not at the command of man, "he straitly charged them that they should not make him known, He rebuked the devils, and "suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ" (Matt. xvi. 13-20; Mark i. 34; iii. 11, 12; Luke iv. 41). It is apparent, therefore, that Jesus, when in life, never announced himself, either as the Son of God or the Christ, but that the titles were assigned him at a later date, as Christianity, in the hands of his followers, developed itself. The incident connected with Peter is furthermore shown to be an unreal one. The disciples had already recognized Jesus as the Son of God when he walked on the sea, and had "worshiped" him as such (Matt. xiv. 33), and the devils had known him, and said who he was. How then can Peter be declared to have had his information by a special revelation from above?

The account of the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1-9) gives similar results. Jesus is exhibited in glory, with Moses and Elias brought down to earth to attend upon him and do him honour. Then "a voice out of the cloud" says, "This is my beloved Sou, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." The fact of the divine sonship had already been proclaimed by men and devils, but it is still thought necessary that the divine Father himself should make the enunciation. And when made, "Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the son of man be risen again from the dead." We have to reconcile, as we may, the proclamation of the sonship from heaven with the constant repression of the fact on earth. The real construction to adopt, no doubt, is that here we have the admission that the event of the vision was not known of in the lifetime of Jesus, and came to view only after his death.