"corruption 'incorruption." This epistle moreover gives a scheme of reappearances of Jesus after death materially differing from the several accounts thereof in the gospels, which are also in conflict with one another. On the top of all, the meekness, gentleness, and forgiving spirit, inculcated in all the other writings, is overthrown by the fierce vengeful breathings of the Apocalypse.

The order in which these various writings have been put forth reveals itself to some extent. The first in the field must have been some of the Apocrypha. Luke discloses the fact that there were 66 many" other accounts of Jesus which preceded his own, and Matthew and Mark have a common origin with his gospel. Certain of the Apocrypha, accordingly, are referred to by early writers, who evince no knowledge of any of the canonical scriptures. We arrive thus at the important conclusion, that some of the Apocrypha have led the way in the projection of the Christian scheme, and have afforded ideas and facts for the construction of the canonical gospels. I place the synoptics next in the order of time, and after them the Acts, these being all linked together, and expressing primitive Judaic Christianity. The Epistles to the Thessalonians, and that of James, belong to this category. The Epistle to the Galatians must have been issued after the Acts, since its statements are framed to contradict those of the Acts. The Epistles generally may have occurred in the order in which they exhibit development of doctrine; that is, there came those that preach the sacrificial death, and then those that add in the pre-existence of Jesus. At this time the protest against Gentilism appearing in the Apocalypse must have been made. The last in the order have seemingly been those epistles which declare the divinity of Jesus, and the fourth gospel, which is the crowning of the incongruous edifice. It may be judged that often these writers may not have been cognizant of what others preceding them may have said. In those days the circulation of literary productions was unavoidably defective. In this way the ignorance in the Pauline epistles of the gospel representations may perhaps be accounted for. It must also have been the case that none of these writings had established for itself an authority to control the statements of the others, at the periods when the record was growing into being.

The history of Jesus has been advanced at a time far removed from that alleged for the events described. Contemporaneous evidence was thus impossible. The resource used was either tradition or imagination. The latter ingredient is certainly present, and possibly also the former. When once

the scheme was devised of presenting Jesus as a divine agent for the introduction of a new faith, a crowd of writers, apocryphal and canonical, appear to have rushed into the field with a variety of statements more or less independent. They were without restraints in coining their facts. The era was one of deep superstition, limitless credulity, and dearth of true knowledge. There were no impediments from witnesses or information of any substantial kind, the times to be described being sufficiently remote not to hamper the narrators. The aim was a good and encouraging one, the intention being to turn man from evil ways, and direct his heart and conscience to God. The writers were not under the sense of the responsibility of presenting to the world inspired productions, save when they devoted themselves to doctrinal teaching. Even in the latter field the practice of supporting themselves with alleged revelation was by no means universal. Under all these circumstances the multiplicity and hardihood of the writers may be accounted for. That they should borrow from one another was inevitable; and their conflict of representation, whether on allegation of fact or doctrine, shows that they were all writing at a time when no one had as yet established for himself the character of an inspired author. That ambition had in truth not suggested itself to them. As time progressed, and controversies became sharp, the support of authority became a necessity. Then, gradually, from this mass of literature, those writings now relied on were singled out, and incorporated together, and at length became clothed with the attribute of inspiration.

The result of the whole process is the worship of Jesus; but what are we to think of his portraiture? By those who may have followed me thus far, a vast proportion of what has been laid upon him must be considered absolutely untrue. The misdescriptions are not due to defective information or error of judgment. They are the fruits of pure imagination, projected by persons seen to be quite unscrupulous in the manipulation

of their materials. The only question, therefore, is what may be the residuum of truth upon which the image of Jesus, as we have him, has been built up? Here we have only surmise to guide us, the writers of his history being unreliable, and there being no independent supports.

It is possible that there may have been such a person known of in Galilee. He is described as the son of a carpenter, himself exercising that calling, of Essene proclivities, entering, it may be judged, that community, and then going about in a fervent spirit to teach natural religion, tainted, however, with the asceticism of the Essenes, in so far as he may have required that all men should abandon worldly occupations, and practise the life of devotees. He may also have laid claim to some measure of wonder-working. Unless there was this basis of truth in the history, it is difficult to understand how the several accounts should centre round one person, and why the hero should have been placed upon the particular low unambitious level selected for him. It is possible also that he suffered death as a condemned criminal under the Roman law; otherwise it is hard to understand why this debasement should have been introduced. But whoever there may have been of this description to have afforded the nucleus for the history in question, it is clear, taking his time to be that alleged for Jesus, that he could not have been one who had created for himself, as a religious teacher and persuader of his fellow men, any marked notoriety, whether from the character of his teaching, or the influence he may have established; else would he assuredly have been noticed in the pages of Philo and of Josephus and other Jewish historians.

We have, then, in the representation of Jesus, something like a picture coming to us from the easel of an artist. The painter may have had an actual model to work from, but all the adjuncts with which he has elaborated his subject are purely ideal. He puts him into what attitude he pleases, surrounds him with all required accessories, and makes him express the story he wishes to illustrate in the way he thinks most effective. The paint is of course not spared. The shadows are deepened, the light is thrown in vividly, and the foreground brilliantly coloured. But the picture at length is found defective. does not meet its ends. It requires fresh colouring to raise its

effects. It then falls into the hands of other painters, such as are the professional restorers, who overlay it with further efforts of art. These may be bold practitioners, and in the end strike out quite a novel representation of their own. We have had recently a notable example of the operation in the altar piece purchased for the National Gallery as the work of Piero della Francesca, the manipulation of which has been proclaimed by Mr J. C. Robinson (The Times, 9th June 1874). Of the paint that presents itself to the eyes of the admirers of this precious gem, not an atom, it appears, according to Mr Robinson, comes from the pallet of the original designer. The process affords an illustration of the creation of Christianity, as we have it. The primitive Jewish design is barely perceptible, and for practical purposes gone. The Gentile over-layings predominate, and alone feed the apprehensions. The portraiture of John obliterates the delineations of the synoptics, bringing before us an object of divine proportions in lieu of the mere Jewish teacher who before existed; and the simple doctrines traceable to such a teacher, as unfolded in the synoptics and the Acts of the apostles, are swamped and subverted by the mystic discourses of John, the subtile dogmas of the Pauline epistles, and the terrific imagery of the Apocalypse; and thus we have Christianity.

V.

THE GENTILE MOULDS OF CHRISTIANITY.

CHRISTIANITY, in its primitive form, was necessarily shaped out of the Judaic elements from the midst of which it sprung. These were afforded by the Jewish scriptures, the tenets of the Essenes and Therapeuts, and the Neo-Platonic theories of the Logos, as expounded by such a writer as Philo. When the movement was influenced by a large accession of Gentile converts, it was natural, while the development was in progress, that occasion should be found for admitting those strong currents of belief upon which this class had habitually depended; and thus the doctrines and mythologies of the Greeks, Egyptians, and Hindús, all met with in Alexandria, became laid under contribution to impart form and fixity of character to the nascent faith. Christians, conscious of their higher aims, are loth to acknowledge their obligations to such sources as these, but the similitudes are too frequent, and too striking, to be accounted for as other than due to deliberate adaptation. A vein of powerful sentiment, common to human nature, runs through these imaginings, which has served to give life and solidity to the whole.

The prosecution of sacrifice was a method common to Jews and Gentiles for conciliating an offended deity, and that of human beings ranked above all others for efficacy. The alleged death of Jesus, being an event present in the system, was readily turned to account as an incident to which to attach the value of a sacrifice. His divine sonship also naturally suggested itself to those whose Pantheon teemed with objects raised up from a superhuman parentage. Heavenly beings had been in the habit of consorting with females of earth,