Produced by David Edwards, Paul Clark and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)





    Transcriber's Note:

    Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as
    possible, including some inconsistencies in hyphenation. Some
    changes of spelling and punctuation have been made. They are
    listed at the end of the text.

    Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.




[Illustration]




 The REAL JESUS
 of the
 FOUR GOSPELS

 _By_ J. B. ATWATER

 MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
 1922

Copyrighted, 1921

J. B. ATWATER




THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO ALL THOSE WHO, IN AGES PAST, HAVE SUFFERED OR
SHED THEIR BLOOD ON ACCOUNT OF CREEDS, DOGMAS, THEOLOGIES, INQUISITIONS
OR OTHER PERVERSIONS OF THE SIMPLE, ALL-SUFFICIENT RELIGION TAUGHT BY
JESUS: LOVE THE LORD, THY GOD, WITH ALL THY HEART, AND THY NEIGHBOR AS
THYSELF.




PREFACE


The first part of this work is a collation of all that is said, and just
what is said, in each of the four Gospels, regarding the more important
incidents of Jesus' life. Every statement in the text, it is thought, is
accurate, free from personal coloring or sectarian bias, and may be
verified from the passages cited. After examining various lives of
Jesus, harmonies of the Gospels, etc., there seemed to be need of such a
work, which would furnish simply the facts, and leave the reader to form
his own conclusions.

Certain notes are appended in elucidation of or comment on the text, and
these may be taken for what they are worth. Their underlying idea is,
that the true greatness of Jesus lay in His being a human Teacher and
not a Divine Redeemer, and therefore the supernatural parts of the
Gospel story are not of vital importance.

The King James version has been used, since that has been the Bible of
English-speaking peoples up to the present century, and their
conceptions of Jesus have been formed from it, and not from the revised
version. The differences between the two versions are probably not
material to any matter herein discussed.

The second part is an attempt to point out, and comment on, the many and
wide divergences that have grown up between the preachings of Jesus and
the practices of His professed followers. Its object is not to criticise
the short-comings of Christianity, but to bring home to the people of
the United States a realization of the practical effect which these
divergences have had, and are now having, on political and economic
questions of high import to the present and future welfare of mankind.




The REAL JESUS of the FOUR GOSPELS




PART I


GENEALOGY

Mark and John give no genealogy of Jesus, except that He was the son of
Joseph and Mary (Mark III:31; VI:3; John I:45; II:1; XIX:25), and is
spoken of as the son of David (Mark X:47, 48; XI:10; John VII:42).

Matthew gives a genealogy from Abraham down to Joseph (Chap. I), and
Luke gives one from Joseph up to Adam (III:2, 23-28).[1]

These two lines of ancestry are the same from Abraham down to David.
There they diverge into two separate lines. Matthew has the next in
descent Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba, former wife of Uriah, the
Hittite (1 Chron. III:5). Luke has, in place of Solomon, his fullblood
brother Nathan (1 Chron. III:5).[2]

From this point down, there is little agreement between the two lines of
descent.

Even as to the father of Joseph, Matthew has Jacob, while Luke says his
name was Heli. They agree as to Joseph's grandfather--Matthan or
Matthat--but, as to his great grandfather, Matthew has Eleazar, while
Luke has Levi.

As to Matthew's line of descent from Solomon, most of his names will be
found in I Chron. Chap. III, although there are several differences.
Where Luke obtained his names of Nathan's descendants, does not
appear.[3]


CONCEPTION

Matthew and Luke state that Jesus was conceived of Mary, when a virgin,
by the Holy Ghost (Matt. Chap. I, Luke Chap. I).

Mark and John are silent on the subject, except as they speak of Jesus
as being the son of Joseph and Mary (Mark III:31; VI:3; John I:45; II:1;
XIX:25).

Matthew says that Joseph, after he was "espoused" to Mary and was her
"husband", but before they "came together", discovered that she was with
child and was "minded to put her away privily." But an angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream, and told him that his "wife" was with child
by the Holy Ghost,[4] and would bring forth a son, and that he should
call His name Jesus. Matthew adds that this was in fulfillment of an Old
Testament prophesy, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall
bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel" (Isaiah
VII:14).[5]

Luke gives the name of the angel, to-wit: Gabriel,[6] but he appears to
_Mary_ instead of to _Joseph_. He also appeared _before_ Mary's
conception, instead of _after_, as in Matthew.[7] Apparently Mary, while
"espoused" to Joseph, was not yet his "wife", since she asks the angel
how she shall conceive, "seeing that I know not a man?" (Luke I:34).[8]
It would also seem that the appearance of the angel was not in a dream,
since his conversation with Mary is related as any ordinary conversation
between two natural persons.[9]


PRE-NATAL INCIDENTS

Luke gives (Chap. I) a quite lengthy account of the conception of John
the Baptist, which is very similar to the story of the conception of
Samson in the Old Testament (Judges Chap. XIII). He also tells of a
three months' visit of Mary to Elisabeth, mother of John the Baptist
and Mary's cousin (Luke I:36), and of Elisabeth's recognition of Mary as
the mother of "My Lord" (Luke I:43).[10] While Mary treated the
announcement of the angel rather indifferently (Luke I:38), she now, on
this salutation of Elisabeth, pours out a grand hymn of invocation and
thanksgiving for the blessing that has come upon her (Luke I:46-55).

The three other evangelists are silent as to these incidents and do not
mention any relationship between Jesus and John.


BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD

Mark and John furnish no information as to the life of Jesus prior to
His baptism by John.

Both Matthew and Luke agree in giving Bethlehem of Judæa as the place of
Jesus' birth. Apparently Matthew considered Bethlehem the then residence
of Joseph and Mary, for he says nothing of their presence there being
temporary, and Joseph, when he returned from Egypt, was going back to
Judæa (Bethlehem), but, on being warned of God in a dream, "he turned
aside into the parts of Galilee; and he came and dwelt in a city called
Nazareth" (Matt. II:22, 23). Luke, however, says that Joseph and Mary
came down to Bethlehem from Nazareth to be taxed (or enrolled), and,
because there was no room for them in the inn, Jesus, when born, was
laid in a manger. Matthew does not mention any manger, but, on the other
hand, the "wise men of the East" find the family in "the house," as
would be natural if Bethlehem was Joseph's residence (Matt. II:11).

Matthew alone tells the story of the visit of the wise men from the East
(Matt. II:1-2). He does not tell us the country from which they came,
nor how they learned of the approaching birth of Jesus, the usual _deus
ex machina_ of Matthew and Luke--an angel in a dream--not being used
here, although he appears in warning the wise men not to see Herod on
their return (Matt. II:12).

Matthew also relates that it was revealed to the "wise men" that Jesus
was to be "king of the Jews" (Matt. II:2). But Jesus never used this
title as applying to Himself, and, that He did use it, was one of the
"false" charges made against Him at His trial (John XVIII:33, 34, 36).

Luke also has a visit to the new born Jesus, but it is of shepherds "in
the same country," instead of strangers from the East. To these
shepherds appeared, not a star, but first one angel and then "a
multitude of the heavenly host." This gives Luke the opportunity to
introduce a beautiful hymn of greeting to the new born Babe, which is
entirely lacking in Matthew (Luke II:10-14). The shepherds did their
homage by "glorifying and praising God," instead of by gifts of gold and
frankincense and myrrh (Matt. II:11).

Matthew is the only one of the evangelists to tell of the slaying by
Herod of "all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts
thereof from two years old and under," and the flight of Joseph and Mary
to Egypt (Matt. II:16-23).[11]

Luke alone tells of the visit to the temple when Jesus was twelve years
old, and of His meeting the "doctors," "both hearing them and asking
them questions" (Luke II:46).[12]


BAPTISM OF JESUS

John's baptism of Jesus is the first event in the latter's life which
all four evangelists unite in recording. The earlier events related by
Matthew and Luke--Mark and John either do not know, or do not believe,
or do not deem worth recording.

John begins his preaching about the year A. D. 26 (Luke III:1).
Apparently Jesus was "about thirty years of age" when He was baptized
(Luke III:23). The four Gospels describe at some length, and with
substantial agreement, the preaching of John and the incidents of the
baptism (Matt. III, Mark I, Luke III, John I).

Matthew's narrative covers seventeen verses, and John recognizes Jesus,
for he says, "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to
me?" (Matt. III:14).

It does not appear that any one but Jesus saw the dove descending from
heaven, or heard the voice (Matt. III:16-17).

Mark's narrative is the most concise, covering eleven verses, and
omitting one or two points of John's preaching and his recognition of
Jesus, as given in Matthew (Mark I:1-11). It does not appear that John
knew or greeted Jesus in any way, or that any one but Jesus saw the dove
or heard the voice.

Luke expands the story to twenty-two verses (Luke III:1-22), adding some
points of John's preaching not given in Matthew or Mark. The baptismal
ceremony is condensed into two verses, and, as in Luke, it does not
appear that John recognized Jesus, or that any one but Jesus saw the
dove or heard the voice.

John's account covers twenty-two verses (John I:15-36), and differs
quite markedly from the other three. This Gospel adds a material point
to John's preaching not in the others (John I:15-18), and omits certain
points appearing in the others. The actual baptism itself is not
described, but John speaks of it as an event that had occurred. He did
not recognize Jesus on first meeting Him (contrary to Matthew's
version): "And I knew Him not" (John I:31, 33). But "I saw the spirit
descending from heaven like a dove and it abode upon Him" (John I:32).
And "He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon
whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same
is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" (John I:33). On account of
this sign, therefore, he accepted Jesus as the "Lamb of God."[13]


JESUS' MISSION AS HE CONCEIVED IT DURING HIS LIFE-TIME

From this point on, the accounts of Jesus' movements in the four Gospels
are so confusing and contradictory that the only feasible plan seems to
be to follow one Gospel to its end, noting similarities or differences
in the other Gospels as they occur in the course of the narrative.

But, before starting on this, it seems necessary to grasp clearly just
what was Jesus' basic purpose in this, His life-work. Probably nine out
of ten of His followers of today would say that it was to redeem mankind
and convert the world to His teachings. Now, the evidence of the four
Gospels is directly contrary to this view. Jesus had little regard for
the Gentiles or Heathen, and no interest whatever in their conversion.
His references to them are usually derogatory and rather contemptuous
(Matt. VI:32; X:18; XVIII:17; XX:19; Mark X:33, 42, 43; Luke XXII:25),
although there are one or two exceptions, when He is upbraiding the Jews
for their unbelief (Matt. VIII:10; XI:21).

Apparently He never preached to the Gentiles, and was loath to exercise
His healing powers for their benefit. When the woman of Canaan besought
Him to cure her daughter, He at first refused on the ground that His
healing powers were reserved for the Jews. "It is not meet to take the
children's bread and cast it to _dogs_" (Matt. XV:26).

In His instructions to His apostles and disciples (Matt. X; Mark
VI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6), He does not enjoin on them to preach to the
Gentiles, but, on the contrary, expressly prohibits them from doing so.
"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and, into any city of the
Samaritans, enter ye not" (Matt. X:5; see also Matt. X:23).

The apostles, as judges in heaven, are to have jurisdiction, not over
the Gentiles, but only over Jews. "Ye, also, shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the _twelve tribes of Israel_" (Matt. XIX:28).

The angel who announced Jesus' conception to Joseph said that "He shall
save _His people_ from their sins"--not the whole world or "all nations"
(Matt. I:21). So the angel who announced the conception of Jesus to Mary
said that God should give unto Him the throne of His father David, and
that He should "reign over the _house of Jacob_ forever" (Luke I:32,
33).

One of the first recorded utterances of Jesus is: "Think not that I come
to destroy the Law or the prophets. I am not come to _destroy_, but to
_fulfill_" (Matt. V:17). The converted Paul, with the over-zeal that
often marks converts, conceived that his own mission was to _destroy_
the old Jewish law, and worked most successfully towards that end,
overcoming the opposition of Peter, James, John and other intimate
associates of Jesus (Gal. Chap. II). But Jesus, in adhering to the old
Law, necessarily excluded from His scheme of redemption all Gentiles and
others who did not practice circumcision and similar obligatory rites of
the Jewish faith.

Finally, we have Jesus' own clear and positive declaration of His
understanding of His mission. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of
the house of Israel" (Matt. XV:24).

As against this explicit statement of His position, the two ambiguous
references to some future (apparently after His death) preaching of His
Gospel "for a witness unto all nations," or that it "must first be
published among all nations," can have no weight (Matt. XXIV:14; Mark
XIII:10).

The evidence establishes beyond a doubt that the characterization of
Jesus by Paul and others who had never heard or seen Him, as an evangel
to the Gentiles and a redeemer of mankind, was not only not authorized
by Jesus, but was explicitly repudiated by Him. His only mission, as He
conceived it, was to bring back the Jews to the true, simple worship of
the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[14]

That Jesus failed in this mission must be admitted. At first the people
flocked in multitudes to listen to His preaching. This was due in part
to their expectation of a coming Messiah and, no doubt, in part to the
effect of John's work. But what the Jews expected was an earthly
kingdom and a ruler who would give them victory over the heathen. They
had no interest whatever in a spiritual kingdom. Their disappointment
was bitter when they found that Jesus promised them only a kingdom in
heaven. Nor were they affected by such miracles as healing the sick,
making the blind to see, the lame to walk, etc. The miracles they
demanded were those of the Old Testament, when the Lord of Hosts visited
His overwhelming wrath upon the armies of their enemies.

His neighbors of Galilee were the first to fall away from Jesus, and
apparently He felt this defection deeply (Compare Matt. IV:25 with Matt.
XIII:57, 58; Mark I:28 with VI:4, 5, 6). Even His own brothers did not
believe in Him (John VII:5).

This opposition to Him spread (Matt. XI:20; XIII:57), and gradually
deepened into active animosity, so that He was on occasions driven out
of different places, or was in danger of stoning or death (Matt.
VIII:34; Luke IV:29; John VII:I, 19, 44; VIII:59; X:39).

Finally the end came at Jerusalem, when His personal adherents had
apparently dwindled down to a few besides His apostles. Jerusalem had
always shown Him little favor, but, at this time of the Passover, it was
filled with Jews from all parts of their country. Yet, when Pilate
offered to release Him to the people, there was none to ask for His
freedom. At the very last, even all His disciples fled from Him (Matt.
XXVI:56).

Some small bands or sects of Jewish followers survived His death, but
their numbers constantly diminished, and all of them disappeared within
a few centuries after His death. From that time to this the Jews have
consistently, and practically unanimously, rejected Jesus' teachings and
His claims to be their Messiah.[15]


JESUS' FAST IN THE WILDERNESS

Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus, after His baptism by John, was
"led up," or driven "of the Spirit" into the wilderness, staying there
forty days fasting and being "tempted of the devil" (Matt. IV:1-11; Mark
I:12, 13; Luke IV:1-13). Mark says that this was "immediately" after the
baptism, and condenses the event into two verses. Matthew and Luke give
in detail the temptations of the devil. Matthew and Mark mention that
Jesus was ministered to by angels. Luke adds at the end that the devil
departed from Him "for a season."[16]

John directly contradicts this story of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He gives
Jesus' movements specifically for three days after His baptism. On the
first day He calls two of His apostles, Andrew and his brother Simon
Peter (John I:35-42). On the second day He calls Philip, and here occurs
the interview with Nathaniel (John I:43-51), which appears only in this
Gospel. On the third day Jesus, instead of fasting in the wilderness,
attends a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, and performs what John says
was His first miracle--the turning of water into wine (John II:1-11).

"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His
brethren and His disciples; and they continued there not many days"
(John II:12). "And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem" (John II:13).


THE CALLING OF THE APOSTLES

Matthew says that, after the fasting in the wilderness and after a visit
to Nazareth, Jesus "came and dwelt in Capernaum" on the coast of the Sea
of Galilee (Matt. IV:12,13). As He was walking by the sea, he found
Peter and Andrew fishing, and summoned them to follow Him (Matt.
IV:18,19,20). Going on from thence He found James and John fishing and
summoned them also (Matt. IV:21-22). Matthew does not tell us of the
circumstances of the calling of the other apostles except Matthew. After
the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount, and the performance of various
miracles, and Jesus had come into Capernaum (Matt. IX:1; IV:13),[17] as
He "passed forth from thence, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the
receipt of custom; and He saith unto him, follow me, and he arose and
followed Him" (Matt. IX:9). Matthew speaks several times of the
"disciples" (apostles)[18] collectively, both before and after the
calling of Matthew (Matt. V:1; VIII:23,25; IX:19). The names of the
twelve are given in Chap. X:1-4.

Mark has the same account as Matthew of the calling of Peter, Andrew,
James and John, but in place of the calling of Matthew has the
following: "And as He passed by he saw _Levi_, the son of Alphaeus,
sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, follow me. And he
arose and followed Him" (Mark II:14). After this Mark several times
mentions His "disciples" (Mark II:15, 16, 18, 23; III:7, 9), and later
says that He "ordained twelve that they might be with Him and that He
might send them forth to preach" (Mark III:14). Both Matthew and Mark
give James "the son of Alphaeus," as one of the apostles, but not Levi.

Luke relates that Jesus found Peter, with James and John, his
"partners," fishing by the "Sea of Gennesaret" (Galilee), and called
them and they followed Him (Luke V:1-11). He omits any mention of Andrew
and adds two new incidents, that Jesus "taught the people out of the
ship," and that Peter and the others put out their nets and they
"inclosed a great multitude of fishes; and their net broke."

A little later Jesus "saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt
of custom," and He said to him, "Follow me, and he left all, rose and
followed Him" (Luke V:27, 28).

Luke adds here the incident that Levi "made Him a great feast," at which
publicans and others sat down, and the scribes and Pharisees rebuked the
disciples, saying "Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners?"
(Luke V:27-32).[19]

At some uncertain time later Jesus called "unto Him His disciples, and
of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles" (Luke VI:13). Then
follow the names, the same as in Matthew and Mark.

John's story is somewhat variant. Jesus' baptism took place at
Bethabara, beyond Jordan, in the Decapolis, and some distance both from
Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee. Here, on the next day, Jesus meets John
and two of His disciples (John I:35, 36). One of these is Andrew, and he
brings His brother Simon Peter to Jesus. The two acknowledge Him as the
Messiah, and thereafter follow Him (John I:40-42). The following day
Jesus finds Philip and makes him one of His disciples (John I:43). There
is no further mention of any specific apostles being called by Jesus,
although there are constant references to His disciples being with Him
(John II:2, 12, 17; III:22; IV:8). There is no specific account of the
choosing of the twelve, although the Gospel mentions later that they had
been chosen (John VI:67, 70).

In the last chapter of John "Nathaniel of Cana" is mentioned apparently
as one of the twelve apostles (John XXI:2), although his name is not in
the lists of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He was probably the same Nathaniel
who appears earlier in this Gospel (John I:43-51).


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

The Sermon on the Mount is the first discourse by Jesus narrated by
Matthew, and is the longest connected discourse to be found in the four
Gospels. The place of its delivery is not fixed other than that "He went
up into a mountain," but it was probably some elevation of land in
Galilee, near Capernaum (Matt. IV:13). The time of its delivery is also
not fixed, although it must have been shortly after the baptism by John.
Jesus had already done some preaching in Galilee and performed some
miracles (Matt. IV:23, 24), but the delivery of the sermon ante-dates
all the specific miracles which Matthew relates. The discourse covers
three chapters (109 verses) of Matthew's text.

There is, in the four Gospels, no other connected discourse
corresponding to the Sermon on the Mount, except in Luke. In Chapter VI
he gives a discourse covering twenty-nine verses of his text, which are
substantially the same as corresponding verses of the Sermon on the
Mount. The place of the delivery of this discourse is not fixed, except
that it was on a "plain" (Luke VI:17), probably near Capernaum (Luke
VII:1). The time is not fixed, except that Luke's sermon on the plain
occurs _after_ a number of miracles and other events (Luke IV:33-44;
VI:1-19), while in Matthew's narrative the Sermon on the Mount occurs
_before_ these events (Matt. VIII and following).

Some of the verses of this discourse will be found scattered through
Mark and John, but a considerable portion of it is entirely lacking. For
instance, the "beatitudes" do not appear in either Mark or John.[20]


THE LORD'S PRAYER

In Matthew the Lord's Prayer forms a part of the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. VI:9-13).[21]

According to Luke (Luke XI:2-4) it was given to the disciples alone, and
not to a multitude, as in Matthew. In Luke it also comes at a much later
date than the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. One verse is slightly
different, Luke having, "and forgive us our sins; for we also forgive
every one who is indebted to us," in place of Matthew's "and forgive us
our debts as we forgive our debtors." Luke also omits the last sentence
in Matthew's version.

The Lord's Prayer is not found in Mark or John.[22]


THE FIRST MIRACLES

Matthew says, in a general way, that Jesus healed "all manner of
sickness" before the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. IV:23,
24). But the first specific miracles which he describes occurred after
that event (Matt. VIII:1-15). The first was the leper, the second the
centurion's servant, afflicted with palsy, and the third was the mother
of Simon Peter's wife, who was "sick of a fever." Jesus saw and touched
the leper and Peter's wife's mother, but the centurion's servant was one
of the few cases where the cure was effected in the absence of the
patient and without Jesus' seeing him.

The curing of the leper is described by Mark (I:40) and by Luke (V:12).
Luke describes the healing of the centurion's servant (VII:1-10),
differing only in that the friends of the centurion came to Jesus
instead of the centurion in person, as in Matthew.

Mark and Luke both relate the curing of Peter's wife's mother (Mark
I:30; Luke IV:38).

John mentions none of these miracles, but, alone of all four
evangelists, narrates the miracle at Cana of changing water into wine
(John II:1-10), and says that this was Jesus' first miracle (John
II:11). He then describes the curing of the sick "son of a nobleman of
Capernaum" (John IV:46-53), and says that this was the second miracle
"which Jesus did when He was come out of Judæa into Galilee," viz: after
His baptism by John (John IV:54). The circumstances of this miracle are
quite similar to those of the centurion's servant described by Matthew
and Luke, the cure being effected in the absence of the patient.

Matthew next gives the miracle of the stilling of the tempest (Matt.
VIII:23-27), which is also found in Mark (IV:35-41), and in Luke
(VIII:22-25). This miracle is not found in John.

Then follows the miracle of driving the devils out of the two men of the
"country of the Gergesenes," and sending them into a herd of swine which
"ran violently down a steep place into the sea and perished in the
waters" (Matt. VIII:28-34).

Mark narrates the same miracle as occurring in the country of the
Gadarenes, except there is one man instead of two (Mark V:1-20). The
sufferings of this man, who is possessed of "an unclean spirit," are
described in some detail. The spirit, being asked for his "name," says,
"My name is Legion; for we are many." Thereupon he or they beseech Jesus
not to send them away out of the country, but: "Send us into the swine,
that we may enter into them." Jesus "gave them leave," and they entered
into the swine ("they were about two thousand") and the swine ran
violently down a steep place, and "were choked in the sea."

Luke's account (Luke VIII:26-40) follows substantially that of Mark.
There was one man in the country of the Gadarenes "which had devils a
long time." The devil or devils besought Jesus "that He would not
command them to go out into the deep," but would send them into the
swine. This Jesus does, and the swine run down a steep place and are
choked in the sea.

All three accounts agree that, after the miracle, "the whole city," or
"the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about,"
besought Jesus to depart from them. The only reason given for this
action is the statement of Luke "for they were taken with great fear"
(Luke VIII:37).

John does not mention this miracle.[23]


THE RAISING OF THE DEAD

There are three miracles of this class in the Gospels.

The first (apparently) in point of time is related by Luke (Luke
VII:11-17).[24] The day after the curing of the centurion's servant at
Capernaum (Luke VII:1), Jesus went into a city called Nain, with "many
of His disciples" and "much people" (Luke VII:11). Nain was an inland
city in the southern part of Galilee, some distance from Capernaum and
the sea of Galilee. This is the only time that this city is mentioned
in the four Gospels. As Jesus approaches the city, the dead man is
carried out, followed by his mother, a widow, and "much people of the
city" (Luke VII:12). Apparently without any solicitation, Jesus tells
the dead man to arise, "and he that was dead sat up and began to speak"
(Luke VII:13, 14, 15). The dead man and his relatives are not otherwise
identified and there is no reference to this miracle in any of the other
Gospels.

The next miracle of this class is that of Jairus' daughter.

Matthew relates that, while Jesus was at Capernaum after the miracle of
the Gadarene swine (Matt. IX:1, 10), a "certain ruler" came to Him and
said: "My daughter is even now dead; but come and lay Thy hand upon her,
and she shall live" (Matt. IX:18). In answer to this request Jesus and
His disciples go to the ruler's house, and find "the minstrels and the
people making a noise." Jesus says, "Give place, for the maid is not
dead but sleepeth. And they laughed Him to scorn. But when the people
were put forth, He went in and took her by the hand, and the maid arose"
(Matt. IX:23, 24, 25). On the way to the ruler's house occurs the
miracle of the woman with an issue of blood touching Jesus' garment and
being cured (Matt. IX:20, 21, 22).

Mark places this miracle immediately after that of the Gadarene swine,
when Jesus had passed over the sea (Galilee) unto the other side
(Capernaum), nigh unto the sea (Mark V:21). "One of the rulers of the
synagogue, Jairus by name," came to Him and told Him, "My little
daughter lieth at the point of death" (Mark V:23). Jesus takes with him
only Peter and James and John, and, on the way to the ruler's house,
word is brought that the daughter is dead (Mark V:35, 37). Jesus brings
the father, mother, Peter, James and John into the girl's room, takes
her by the hand and bids her arise. At once she arose and walked, "for
she was of the age of twelve years" (Mark V:40, 41, 42). The curing of
the woman with the issue of blood is also given, but at considerable
more length than in Matthew (Mark V:25-34).

Luke's account (Luke VIII:41-56) is substantially the same as that of
Mark. The daughter "lay a dying" when Jairus went to get Jesus, and word
of her death comes just as the miracle on the woman with an issue of
blood is performed. Jesus took the father and mother and Peter, James
and John into the house, but, apparently, excluded them from the girl's
room, when he performed the miracle. "And He put them all out, and took
her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise" (Luke VIII:54).

The raising of Lazarus from his grave is told only by John (John
XI:1-46). It occurred late in Jesus' prophetic career, very shortly
before the last Passover (John XI:55; XII:1, and following). Jesus was
then at Bethabara in Decapolis (John X:40; I:28). Lazarus and his
sisters, Mary and Martha, were living in Bethany, in Judæa, quite near
Jerusalem, but some little distance from Bethabara. Jesus already knew
the family and "loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus." Lazarus
falling sick, the sisters send to Jesus saying, "Lord, behold, he whom
Thou lovest is sick" (John XI:3). Jesus does not go at once but waits
two days (John XI:6). Apparently the reason for this delay is that,
instead of healing a sick man, He may raise a dead man from the grave
"that the Son of God might be glorified thereby" (John XI:4, 11-15).
When Jesus came to Bethany, He "found that he (Lazarus) had lain in the
grave four days already" (John XI:17). Martha first, and then Mary, came
out to meet Jesus, and express their belief that, if He had been there,
Lazarus would not have died; but are in doubt as to his now being
restored to life (John XI:24, 32, 39). They then go to the grave, which
"was a cave and a stone lay upon it" (John XI:38). Jesus then "cried
with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth,
bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face was bound about
with a napkin" (John XI:43-44).[25]


THE LOAVES AND FISHES

Matthew relates that Jesus departed hence (from Capernaum, Matt.
XIII:54) "by ship into a desert place apart" (Matt. XIV:13). This was
just after the beheading of John the Baptist by Herod (Matt. XIV:10, 11,
12). A "great multitude" followed Jesus, "and He healed their sick"
(Matt. XIV:14). At evening the disciples wished Jesus "to send the
multitude away that they may go into the villages and buy themselves
victuals" (Matt. XIV:15). But Jesus said, "Give ye them to eat." They
had but five loaves and two fishes, and Jesus took these and broke them
and the disciples distributed them to the multitude (Matt. XIV:16-19).
"And they did all eat and were filled; and they took up of the fragments
that remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about
five thousand men, besides women and children" (Matt. XIV:20, 21).

Mark, Luke and John follow very closely the narrative of Matthew, Luke
adding the detail that the "desert place" belonged to the city of
Bethsaida[26] (Mark VI:30-45; Luke IX:10-17; John VI:1-13).

A similar miracle is related by Matthew and Mark (Matt. XV:29-39; Mark
VIII:1-9) as occurring shortly after the first, on a mountain near the
sea (Galilee) in "the midst of the coasts of Decapolis" (Mark VII:31).
There were seven loaves and a "few small fishes," seven baskets full of
the broken food were left, and they that did eat "were four thousand
men, besides women and children" (Matthew), or "about four thousand"
(Mark).

Luke and John do not give this miracle.


OTHER MIRACLES

Besides those already mentioned, the following specific miracles are
found in Matthew, the details of which it is not necessary to give.
These are outside of general and indefinite statements of persons cured
of various afflictions.

(a) The curing at Capernaum of the man sick of the palsy (Matt. IX:1-7).
See Mark II:1-12, Luke V:17-26, where the sick man is let down on his
bed through the roof.

(b) The giving sight to two blind men, apparently at Capernaum (Matt.
IX:27-31).

(c) Restoring his speech to a dumb man at the same time and place (Matt.
IX:32-34).

(d) Curing of the man with the withered hand (Matt. XII:10-13). The
place of this miracle is uncertain.

(e) The case of the blind and dumb man possessed of a devil (Matt.
XII:22, 23). The circumstances of this miracle are the same as in (c).

(f) The walking on the waters (Matt. XIV:22-23) near the land of
Gennesaret (Matt. XIV:34). See Mark VI:47-52; John VI:16-21.

(g) The curing of the daughter of the Gentile woman "vexed with a devil"
(Matt. XV:22-28). The place of this miracle was "the coasts of Tyre and
Sidon" (Matt. XIV:21).

(h) The curing of the lunatic son of a "certain man" (Matt. XVII:14-18).
This occurred in some part of Galilee not specified (Matt. XVII:1, 22,
24). See also Mark IX:17-27; Luke IX:37-42.

(i) The curing of the two blind men near Jericho (Matt. XX:30-34). See
also Mark X:46-52; Luke XVIII:35-43.

(j) The blasting of the fig tree near Bethany (Matt. XXI:18-20). See
Mark XI:12-14, who explains the absence of figs on the tree--"for the
time of figs was not yet."[27]


THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APOSTLES

Matthew devotes an entire chapter to this subject (Matt. X). This is the
first time in Matthew's narrative that the term "Apostles" is applied to
the followers or disciples of Jesus (Matt. X:2). Up to this point he has
mentioned specifically the calling of only five of the apostles (Matt.
IV:18, 21; IX:9), although there are possible references to others
(Matt. VIII:19, 21).

The first injunction is that they shall not preach to the Gentiles or
Samaritans, but "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. X:5,
6).

The only instruction as to the subject-matter of their preachings is
that they shall say "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. X:7).

They are told to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead,
cast out devils" (Matt. X:8).

They are to provide no money for their expenses and carry little raiment
(Matt. X:9,10).

When they enter into a city, they are to seek a worthy house and abide
therein, and, if a city will not receive and hear them, "It shall be
more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment
than for that city" (Matt. X:11-15).

The remainder of the chapter contains warnings of the trials that will
befall the apostles on their mission, admonitions against losing their
courage and promises of the rewards that will follow the faithful
performance of their work. Jesus also predicts the family dissensions
that will accompany the gradual introduction of His Gospel, and in that
connection uses the expression: "Think not that I am come to send peace
on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. X:34).

The place of this statement is not fixed, nor the time, except that it
appears in the narrative after the Sermon on the Mount and the raising
of Jairus' daughter.

Mark tells how Jesus went "up into a mountain and calleth unto Him whom
he would" (Mark III:13). He then "ordained twelve, that they should be
with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach" (Mark III:14).
Then follow the names of the twelve apostles, the calling of four of
whom Mark had already related (Mark I:16-20). At a somewhat later time
he tells of the sending forth of the twelve apostles, but condenses the
instructions to them into four verses (Mark VI:7-13).

Luke tells that Jesus, "having gone out into a mountain to pray, called
unto Him His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named
apostles" (Luke VI:13, 14). The calling of Andrew, Peter, James and
John, and of Levi (if he were one of the apostles) had already been
given (Luke V:1-10, 27, 28). The instructions to the apostles appear
later in his narrative and are condensed into three verses (Luke
IX:1-6).

Luke alone of the four evangelists tells that, at a later date, Jesus
"appointed other seventy also" to go before Him and preach (Luke X:1).
To these seventy are given instructions similar to those given to the
twelve in Matthew (Luke X:2-12).

John tells of the calling of Andrew, Peter and Philip (John I:40, 41,
43), but has no account of any special instructions given to the
apostles.[28]


THE TEMPERATE LIFE

In rebuking the obduracy of the then generation of the Jews, Jesus
illustrates His view of right living, viz: temperance in all things.

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a
devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a
man gluttonous and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners"
(Matt. XI:18, 19).

In the face of the example of asceticism set by John the Baptist, Jesus
neither fasted Himself, nor did He enjoin fasting on His disciples
(Matt. XI:18, 19; IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33). While He objected to
the charge of excess, He both ate meat and drank wine in moderation, and
inculcated the same practice on His disciples. "And in the same house
remain eating and drinking such things as they give" (Luke X:7). He must
have been companionable in His every-day life, for He both entertained
in His own house (Matt. IX:10; Mark II:15), and was a welcome guest at
entertainments given in His honor. "And Levi made Him a great feast at
His own house" (Luke V:29). "And it came to pass as He went into the
house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day"
(Luke XIV:1). "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of
Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus was called
and His disciples to the marriage" (John II:1, 2). "There they made Him
a supper" (John XII:2).[29]

He could sympathize with the spirit of joy and cheer appropriate to such
occasions, for when the wine failed at the wedding in Cana, He provided
a fresh supply, better than the first (John II:3-10).


THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH

On a certain Sabbath day, Jesus and His disciples were passing through
the corn fields (Matt. XII:1; Mark II:23; Luke VI:1). Luke says that it
was "the second Sabbath after the first," probably calling "the first"
the one on which Jesus preached in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke
IV:16). The disciples, being hungry, began to pluck and eat the ears of
corn. The Pharisees object that they "do that which is not lawful to do
on the Sabbath day." Jesus cites the example of David eating the
shew-bread in the house of God, and says that if they understood the
meaning of the saying, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice," they would
not have condemned the guiltless. "And He said unto them, The Sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man
is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Mark II:27).

On another Sabbath day (Luke VI:1, 6), a man with a withered hand was in
the synagogue, and the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus, "Is it lawful
to heal on the Sabbath days? That they might accuse him." Jesus cites
the case of a sheep falling into a pit on the Sabbath day, and says:
"Wherefore it is lawful to _do well_ on the Sabbath day." Thereupon He
restores the man's hand "whole" (Matt. XII:10-13).

In Mark and Luke, Jesus asks the question of the scribes and Pharisees
as to whether it was lawful to _do good_ on the Sabbath day. "But they
held their peace. And when He had looked round about on them with anger,
being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He saith unto the man,
stretch forth thine hand" (Mark III:1-5; Luke VI:6-10).

Again Jesus is teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath and cures a
woman of a "spirit of infirmity" of eighteen years' continuance. The
"ruler of the synagogue" objects "with indignation" to this healing on
the Sabbath, because "there are six days in which men ought to work."
Jesus says: "Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath
loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering"
(Luke XIII:11-17).

Another similar case occurred when Jesus "went into the house of one of
the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath," and healed a certain
man "which had the dropsy." Here He cites against the Pharisees the
illustration of an ass or an ox falling into a pit on the Sabbath day
(Luke XIV:1-6).

John records two more cases of cures being performed on the Sabbath day,
and of the Pharisees objecting to them as unlawful acts (John V:1-17;
IX:1-38. See John VII:23).[30]


THE TRANSFIGURATION

Six (or eight) days after certain preaching, Jesus "taketh Peter, James
and John" and "bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was
transfigured before them; and His face did shine as the sun, and His
raiment was white as the light" (Matt. XVII:1, 2). Moses and Elias then
appear and talk with Jesus (Matt. XVII:3). Peter proposes that they make
three tabernacles (Matt. XVII:4). A cloud then overshadows them and a
voice comes out of the cloud, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased; hear ye Him" (Matt. XVII:5). The disciples are afraid,
fall on their faces, but Jesus touches them and tells them to arise and
be not afraid (Matt. XVII:6, 7). When they arise they see no man, except
Jesus (Matt. XVII:8). As they come down from the mountain, Jesus
charges them, "Tell the vision to no man, until the _Son of Man_ be
risen again from the dead" (Matt. XVII:9).

Mark follows closely the narrative of Matthew, and adds that the
disciples "kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with
another what the rising from the dead should mean" (Mark IX:2-10).[31]

Luke follows the accounts of Matthew and Mark, adding that the disciples
were "heavy with sleep," but saw the vision when they awoke, and "they
kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which
they had seen" (Luke IX:28-36).

John says nothing about this vision.


THE EVENTS PRECEDING JESUS' ARREST

About the middle of his Gospel, Matthew says, "From that time forth
began Jesus to shew unto His disciples" His future trial, death and
resurrection at Jerusalem (Matt. XVI:21). Peter, with his faith in
Jesus' earthly power, "began to rebuke" Him, saying that this should not
be done unto Him (Matt. XVI:22). But Jesus turned on him and said, "Get
thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me; for thou savorest
not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matt. XVI:23.
See also Matt. XVII:22, 23).

Mark and Luke both give this incident, although Luke omits the rebuke of
Peter (Mark VIII:31-33; Luke IX:22).

In all three Gospels the incident closely follows Peter's declaration of
Jesus as "Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. XVI:16; Mark
VIII:29; Luke IX:20).

Again, at a later date, as Jesus is going up to Jerusalem, He predicts
to His disciples the fate that is there awaiting Him (Matt. XX:17-18;
Mark IX:31, 32; X:32; Luke XVIII:31).

Just when these communications were made to the disciples is not clear,
but the earliest of them must have been some time before the last visit
to Jerusalem, since they precede much of Jesus' teaching and many of His
parables and miracles.[32]

As the last Passover approached, Jesus "departed from Galilee and came
into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1). He continued His
preaching as He journeyed, and finally came to Bethphage, nigh unto
Jerusalem (Matt. XXI:1). From there He sends two of His disciples to a
neighboring village, and they bring to Him an ass and her colt (Matt.
XXI:1-7). Riding on the ass (or the colt), He makes His entry into
Jerusalem. The multitude spread their garments, and branches from the
trees, in the way, crying out, "Hosanna to the son of David," and salute
Him as "Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee" (Matt. XXI:7-11).[33]
Jesus then went into the temple, drove out those who bought and sold
therein,[34] and healed the blind and lame (Matt. XXI:12-16).

Leaving Jerusalem, Jesus goes to Bethany (Matt. XXI:17) to the house of
Simon the leper (Matt. XXVI:6). On the following day He returns to
Jerusalem, and on the way occurs the blasting of the fig tree (Matt.
XXI:18-23). It would seem that Jesus must have spent some time in
Bethany, preaching in the day time in Jerusalem, since there follow four
and a half chapters of preaching and parables, which were delivered
before the Passover (Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII; XXIII; XXIV; XXV).[35]

While Jesus was at Simon's house in Bethany, sitting at meat, a woman
(who, it seems, was Lazarus' sister Mary; see John XI:2) came in with an
alabaster box of very precious ointment and poured on His head. The
disciples object to this as a useless waste, but Jesus rebukes them and
commends the woman for her act (Matt. XXVI:6-13).

Mark follows closely Matthew's narrative to this point, except that
Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a colt, "whereon man never sat" (Mark
XI:2; Luke XIX:30), and except that the cleansing the temple of the
money changers is omitted (Mark XI:11).

Luke adds to the accounts of Matthew and Mark the encounter with
Zacchaeus, and Jesus' entertainment by him (Luke XIX:1-7). According to
him, it was "the whole multitude of the disciples" who greeted Jesus on
His entry into Jerusalem (Luke XIX:37). Luke omits the anointing of
Jesus by Mary.

John omits the cleansing of the temple, which he had already given at a
much earlier date (John II:13-17), and says that Mary anointed the feet
of Jesus and wiped them with her hair, instead of pouring the ointment
over His head (John XII:3-8).


THE LAST SUPPER

As the feast of unleavened bread of the Passover approaches, Jesus sends
Peter and John (Luke XXII:8) into Jerusalem to secure a room, in which
He and His disciples may eat, or "kill", the Passover (Matt.
XXVI:17-19). The room is secured, the Passover made ready, and "when the
evening was come, He sat down with the twelve" (Matt. XXVI:20).[36]

While they were eating, Jesus tells the twelve that one of them shall
betray Him, and indicates, in a rather veiled way, that Judas is the
one. They all ask, "Master, is it I?" and He says to Judas, "Thou hast
said" (Matt. XXVI:20-25).

Jesus then blesses the bread and the wine, and gives them to eat and
drink and says: "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,
until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom"
(Matt. XXVI:26-29).

After singing a hymn, they go to the Mount of Olives, and Jesus warns
them of the approaching calamity. "All ye shall be offended because of
me this night." The apostles, and especially Peter, affirm that they
would die rather than deny Him. Jesus says to Peter: "Verily I say unto
thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice"
(Matt. XXVI:30-35).

Jesus with the disciples then goes "unto a place called Gethsemane." He
takes Peter and James and John a little farther and says to them, "My
soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." He goes apart from them
and prays, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;
nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." He returns to find the
disciples sleeping. He repeats the prayer twice, and then says to them,
"Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the
hands of sinners" (Matt. XXVI:36-45).

In Mark the two disciples are sent into the city to meet a man "bearing
a pitcher of water." They are to follow him into whatsoever house he
shall go in, and there secure the guest chamber. This was done, "and
they made ready the Passover" (Mark XIV:12-16).

While they are eating, Jesus tells them that one of them shall betray
Him--"one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish," but does not
specify which one it is. The other incidents of the evening follow (Mark
XIV:17-42) as in Matthew.

Luke recounts the passing of the bread and wine, and the saying of Jesus
that one of the twelve should betray Him, without specifying which one
(Luke XXII:22).

He then relates a new incident (that is, at this feast), a strife among
the apostles as to which should be greatest. Jesus rebukes them, telling
them not to imitate the Gentiles, but that he that is chief should be as
he that serveth (Luke XXII: 24-30).[37]

The prediction of Peter thrice denying his master takes a little
different form. Instead of saying to the apostles, "All ye shall be
offended because of me this night," Jesus addresses Himself to Peter
alone. Evidently, having some doubt of his constancy, He says: "Simon,
Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as
wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." Peter then
asserts, "Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison and to
death." Jesus then predicts that Peter will deny Him thrice before the
cock crows (Luke XXII:31-34).

There follows a passage very difficult to understand, in view of the
fact that a short time later Jesus rebukes one of His followers for
cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant. He reminds His
apostles of the time when He sent them forth without purse or scrip, and
they lacked for nothing. He then tells them that now they should take
both purse and scrip, "and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment and buy one." "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.
And He said unto them, It is enough" (Luke XXII:35-38).

The visit to the Mount of Olives and the prayer offered there is
described more briefly than in Matthew or Mark. There is no mention of
the garden of Gethsemane, but Luke adds that an angel from heaven
appeared, "strengthening Him" (Luke XXII:39-46).

John's version of the Last Supper is quite different from that of the
other three evangelists. He omits any description of the selection of
the place for the feast. He places the supper before the Passover,
apparently correctly, instead of its being the celebration of the
Passover, as in the other three Gospels (John XIII:1). He omits any
mention of the blessing and passing of the bread and wine. He alone of
the evangelists relates that, after the supper, Jesus took a basin of
water and a towel, and washed the apostles' feet, impressing on them a
lesson in humility (John XIII:4-17). Jesus says to the apostles that one
of them shall betray Him. Peter and John ask Him, "Who is it?" Jesus
answers, "It is the one to whom I shall give a sop." He then gives the
sop to Judas, and says, "What thou doest, do quickly." Judas goes away
at once, although none of the apostles (unless Peter and John)
understand that He is accused (John XIII:18-30). After his departure,
John has Jesus delivering a long discourse, covering four chapters and
part of another, none of which appears at this time in the other three
Gospels. After this is finished, Jesus goes with His disciples over "the
brook Cedron," into a garden, but there is no mention of the praying
there, which appears in the other Gospels (John XVIII:1).


THE BETRAYAL

On Tuesday or Wednesday of this Passover week the "chief priests and the
scribes and the elders of the people" came together unto the palace of
Caiaphas, the high priest, and determined on Jesus' death (Matt.
XXVI:3). Judas Iscariot then comes to them and promises to deliver Jesus
to them in consideration of thirty pieces of silver (Matt. XXVI:14-16).
Previous to this last visit to Jerusalem, Jesus had predicted His death
and betrayal, but without indicating that His betrayer would be one of
the apostles (Matt. XVI:21; XX:18-19). At the last supper Jesus
indicates Judas as His betrayer, but somewhat equivocally, since the
other apostles, if they had understood he was the traitor, would
undoubtedly have cast him out of their society. So far as appears, he
continued to take part in the supper (Matt. XXVI:21-25). Just after
Jesus had finished His prayer in the garden, Judas comes with a great
multitude of the chief priest's servants, carrying swords and staves. In
accordance with a pre-arranged plan, Judas kisses Jesus, and thereupon
the servants of the priests lay hands on Him and take Him (Matt.
XXVI:47-50). One of those with Jesus draws his sword and strikes off the
ear of one of the high priest's servants. Jesus rebukes him, saying,
"For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt.
XXVI:51-54). "Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled" (Matt.
XXVI:56). But Peter followed "Him afar off unto the high priest's
palace, and went in, and sat with the servants to see the end" (Matt.
XXVI:58). Then follows the fulfillment of Jesus' saying that Peter
should deny Him thrice before the crowing of the cock (Matt.
XXVI:69-75).

Judas, when he saw that Jesus was condemned, brought the thirty pieces
of silver to the chief priest in the temple, saying, "I have sinned in
that I have betrayed the innocent blood." The chief priests tell him,
"What is that to us? See thou to that." Thereupon Judas cast down the
money in the temple, went away and hanged himself (Matt. XXVII:3-6).

Mark tells of the conspiracy of the chief priests and scribes, and that
Judas went to them and offered to betray Jesus. "They were glad and
promised to give him money" (Mark XIV:1, 2, 10, 11). Before this, Jesus
had predicted His approaching death to the apostles, but had said
nothing of any betrayal (Mark IX:31; X:33). At the last supper Jesus
says that one of the twelve shall betray Him, but does not identify in
any way which one it is (Mark XIV:18-21). Mark then relates, as in
Matthew, the kissing of Jesus by Judas (Mark XIV:43-45), the cutting off
the ear of the high priest's servant (Mark XIV:47), the desertion of
Jesus by all the apostles (Mark XIV:50), Peter's following Him afar off
to the palace of the high priest (Mark XIV:54), and denying Him thrice
before the cock should crow twice (Mark XIV:66-72). What subsequently
happened to Judas, Mark does not state.[38]

According to Luke, the chief priests and scribes had formed their
conspiracy to kill Jesus at a somewhat earlier date than in the other
Gospels (Luke XX:19). They watched and sent forth spies to listen to His
words and obtain material for their charges (Luke XX:20). Jesus had
already predicted His suffering and death at Jerusalem, but did not
mention His betrayal (Luke XVIII:31-33). But the apostles "understood
none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew
they the things which were spoken" (Luke XVIII:34).

As the priests and scribes are planning the time of killing Jesus (Luke
XXII:2), "then entered Satan into Judas," and he went to Jesus' enemies
and offered to betray Him (Luke XXII:3, 4). "And they were glad and
covenanted to give him money" (Luke XXII:5). At the supper Jesus says
that one of those at the table shall betray Him, but does not indicate
which one (Luke XXII: 21-23). At the Mount of Olives Judas came at the
head of a multitude and "drew near unto Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus
said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the _Son of Man_ with a kiss?"
(Luke XXII:47-48). Jesus then heals the servant, whose ear was cut off
(Luke XXII:50, 51). Peter followed Him to the house of the high priest,
and denied Him thrice before the cock crew (Luke XXII:54-62). Nothing is
said about Judas' subsequent fate.

According to John, Jesus knew from the beginning "who should betray Him"
and at an early date told the apostles, "Have not I chosen you twelve,
and one of you is a devil?" (John VI:64, 70).

At or before the last supper the devil put it into Judas' heart to
betray his Master (John XIII:2, 27). Jesus tells the apostles that one
of them shall betray Him (John XIII:21). Peter and John desire to know
which one of them He means, and Jesus tells John that it is the one to
whom He shall give a sop. He then dips a sop and gives it to Judas, with
the remark, "What thou doest, do quickly" (John XIII:22-27). "Now, no
man at the table knew for what intent He spoke this unto him" (John
XIII:28). John alone says that Judas immediately went out into the night
(John XIII:30).

After Jesus had finished His discourse at the supper, and gone into the
garden, Judas appears with a band of men and officers from the chief
priests and Pharisees (John XVIII:1-3). Jesus then "went forth and said
unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus
saith unto them, I am he. And Judas, also which betrayed Him, stood with
them" (John XVIII:4, 5). Simon Peter then cuts off the right ear of
Malchus, a servant of the high priest, and Jesus rebukes him (John
XVIII:10, 11). Peter and another disciple, who was known to the high
priest, follow Jesus to the palace, and there Peter makes his denial
three times before the cock crows (John XVIII:15, 16, 17, 18, 25-27).

The subsequent fate of Judas is not related.[39]


THE TRIAL

Immediately after His arrest, Jesus is taken away to "Caiaphas the high
priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled" (Matt.
XXVI:57).[40]

The council seek "false witnesses" against Jesus and at first have some
difficulty in finding any. "At the last came two false witnesses, and
said: This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to
build it in three days" (Matt. XXVI:59, 60, 61). Interrogated as to this
charge, "Jesus held His peace" (Matt. XXVI:62, 63). The high priest then
adjures Him to tell them whether He is "the Christ, the Son of God"
(Matt. XXVI:63). "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I
say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the _Son of Man_ sitting on the
right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. XXVI:64).
The high priest accepts this as a confession of blasphemy, and, on
appeal to the council, they say, "He is guilty of death" (Matt. XXVI:65,
66). They then indulge their spite against Jesus by spitting in His face
and striking Him with their hands (Matt. XXVI:67, 68).[41]

In the morning (Friday) the chief priests bind Jesus and bring Him to
Pontius Pilate, the Roman "governor" or procurator (Matt. XXVII:1, 2).
Pilate asks Him, "Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto
him, Thou sayest" (Matt. XXVII:11).[42] He persists in maintaining His
position of silence or non-negation against all the accusations of the
chief priests, "insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly" (Matt.
XXVII:12-14). Pilate's wife, having been warned in a dream, sends word
to him, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man" (Matt. XXVII:19).
It being a custom of the feast of the Passover that the governor should
release one prisoner to the people, and Pilate, knowing that the chief
priests had delivered Jesus to him out of "envy," asks the multitude
whom he shall release unto them, Barabbas or Jesus (Matt. XXVII:15, 16,
17, 20, 21). The multitude demands the release of Barabbas, and, on
Pilate's asking them what he shall do with Jesus, "they all say unto
him, Let Him be crucified" (Matt. XXVII:22). "And the Governor said,
Why, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let
Him be crucified" (Matt. XXVII:23). Pilate then washed his hands before
the multitude, "saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person;
see ye to it. Then answered all the people and said, His blood be on us,
and on our children" (Matt. XXVII:24, 25). Thereupon Pilate released
Barabbas, and after he had scourged Jesus, delivered Him to be crucified
(Matt. XXVII:26).

In Mark the charges before the Sanhedrim are the same as in Matthew with
some slight verbal changes (Mark XIV:53-66). To the question, "Art Thou
the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus answers directly, "I am."

The proceedings before Pilate are substantially the same as in Matthew
(Mark XV:1-15).

According to Luke, the session of the Sanhedrim was held "as soon as it
was day," instead of in the night, immediately after Jesus' arrest (Luke
XXII:66). The only charge here is, "Art Thou the Christ?" Jesus, after a
few words, recognizing the futility of any defense, says, "Ye say that I
am" (Luke XXII:66-71).

Luke's account of the proceedings before Pilate is more detailed than,
and somewhat different from, that of Matthew and Mark. The charge is
maliciously distorted so as to offend the political susceptibilities of
the Romans. "We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding
to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King"
(Luke XXIII:2). Pilate, after questioning Jesus, says at once, "I find
no fault in this Man" (Luke XXIII:4). This makes the chief priests the
more fierce, and they press again their charges, mentioning that
Jesus comes from Galilee (Luke XXIII:5). Galilee being in Herod's
jurisdiction, and Herod being then in Jerusalem, Pilate sends Jesus to
him, probably hoping thus to rid himself of the whole trouble (Luke
XXIII:6, 7).[43] Herod questions Jesus, who answers him nothing, and
then with his men of war mocks Jesus, arrays Him "in a gorgeous robe,"
and sends Him back to Pilate (Luke XXIII:8-11). Pilate then calls
together the "chief priests and the rulers and the people," and tells
them that both he and Herod have examined Jesus, and lo, "nothing worthy
of death is done unto Him" (proved against Him) (Luke XXIII:13-15). "I
will, therefore, chastise Him and release Him" (Luke XXIII:16). "And
they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this Man, and release unto
us Barabbas" (Luke XXIII:18). Twice more Pilate urges that Jesus be
released, but they insist that He be crucified. Pilate finally yields
and "gave sentence that it should be as they required" (Luke
XXIII:20-24).

Neither Mark nor Luke nor John mentions that Pilate publicly washed his
hands of responsibility for Jesus' sentence.

John's account of the trial is very indefinite. Jesus was first taken to
Annas,[44] the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest, and Annas
sent Him bound unto Caiaphas (John XVIII:13, 14). There was probably a
session of the Sanhedrim, though this is not clear, and it was probably
at the house of the high priest (John XVIII:15). No specific charges
against Jesus are mentioned, but the high priest asked Him "of His
disciples, and of His doctrine" (John XVIII:19). Jesus replies that He
has spoken openly, and said nothing in secret, and that the priest
should ask those who had heard Him (John XVIII:19, 20, 21, 23). No
formal condemnation of Jesus is related, nor is it said who was present
except the high priest.

Then "they" bring Jesus to Pilate "unto the hall of judgment," but "they
cannot enter in, because it would defile them for the eating of the
Passover that night (John XVIII:28). Pilate then comes out to them and
asks what accusation they have against Jesus (John XVIII:29). They evade
the issue by saying, "If He were not a malefactor, we would not have
delivered Him up to thee" (John XVIII:30). Pilate very aptly tells them
to take Him and judge Him according to their Law, but they reply, "It is
not lawful for us to put any man to death" (John XVIII:31). Pilate
thereupon goes back to the judgment hall, and, after an examination of
Jesus, comes out and says, "I find in Him no fault at all" (John
XVIII:33-38). He then suggests that, according to custom, he release
Jesus unto them. "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this Man, but
Barabbas" (John XVIII:39, 40).

Upon this Pilate has Jesus scourged, a crown of thorns put on His head,
and a purple robe about Him, and has the soldiers hail Him as King of
the Jews (John XIX:1-3). He once more brings Jesus before the people and
states that he finds no fault in Him.[45] The Jews still insist that by
their law He ought to die, "because He made Himself the Son of God"
(John XIX:4-7). Pilate goes back into the judgment hall, and talks
further with Jesus, evidently hoping to find some way out of his dilemma
(John XIX:8-11). "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him; but
the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this Man go, thou art not
Cæsar's friend" (John XIX:12). Pilate makes one more effort to save
Jesus, but, failing, delivers Him over to be crucified (John XIX:13-16).


THE CRUCIFIXION

The soldiers, taking Jesus, at first mocked Him, putting on Him a
scarlet robe and a crown of thorns, spitting on Him and smiting Him
(Matt. XXVII:27-30). They then put His own raiment on Him, and took Him
to the place of Crucifixion, on the way impressing a "man of Cyrene,
Simon by name," to carry His cross (Matt. XXVII:31, 32). When they
reached Golgotha, they gave Him vinegar to drink, mixed with gall, but,
on tasting it, Jesus refused to drink (Matt. XXVII:33, 34). They then
crucified Him with two thieves, one on each hand, and parted His
raiment, casting lots (Matt. XXVII:35, 38). Over His head they set up
"His accusation written: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews" (Matt.
XXVII:37). The passers-by and the chief priests and the two thieves
mocked and reviled Him on account of His prophecies and His failure to
save Himself (Matt. XXVII:39-44). The Crucifixion was apparently at the
sixth hour, and darkness was over the land until the ninth hour (Matt.
XXVII:45). Jesus then cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani" (Matt. XXVII:46). Some of them who stood there thought that
He called for Elias; one of them took a sponge filled with vinegar and
gave it to Him to drink (Matt. XXVII:47, 48). "Jesus, when He had cried
again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost" (Matt. XXVII:50). Then
was the veil of the temple rent in twain, and "the earth did quake and
the rocks rent" (Matt. XXVII:51). Graves were opened, and bodies of the
saints which slept arose, "and came out of the graves after His
resurrection," and appeared to many in the "holy city" (Matt. XXVII:52,
53). When the centurion and the soldiers saw these things done, "they
feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God" (Matt. XXVII:54).
There were many women from Galilee, "beholding afar off," including Mary
Magdalene, Mary, Jesus' aunt, and also the mother of the apostles James
and John (Matt. XXVII:55, 56). "When the even was come" Joseph, a rich
man of Arimathæa, takes Jesus' body, Pilate, at his request having
delivered it to him, wraps it "in a clean linen cloth," and lays it in
his own new tomb, "hewn out in the rock." He rolls a great stone to the
door of the sepulchre and departs (Matt. XXVII:57-60). On the following
day the chief priests come to Pilate and tell him of Jesus' prophecy,
that after three days He would arise again. They express their fears
that the disciples may steal the body and claim that He was risen from
the dead. Pilate gives them a watch, and "they went, and made the
sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch" (Matt.
XVII:62-66).[46]

Mark follows closely the narrative of Matthew, except he says that they
offered Jesus wine mingled with myrrh to drink,[47] instead of vinegar
and gall (Mark XV:23). Mark omits the supernatural happenings at the
death of Jesus, except that the veil of the temple was rent in twain
(Mark XV:38).

He also omits any account of the sealing of the sepulchre, or the
setting of a watch over it (Mark XV:46, 47).

Luke omits the ill-treatment of Jesus by the soldiers before starting on
their march (Luke XXIII:25, 26). "And there followed Him a great company
of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him (Luke
XXIII:27). Jesus delivers a short address to the women, which does not
appear in the other Gospels (Luke XXIII:28-31). They bring Him to
Calvary and crucify Him and the two "malefactors" (Luke XXIII:33). "Then
said Jesus, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke
XXIII:34). The superscription over Him was written in letters of Greek,
Latin and Hebrew (Luke XXIII:38). Luke alone relates that, when one of
the "malefactors" railed at Jesus, the other rebuked Him, and asked
Jesus to remember him, when He should come into His kingdom; Jesus says
to him: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke XXIII:39-43).
The sun was darkened and the "veil of the temple was rent in the midst"
(Luke XXIII:44, 45). The centurion acknowledges Jesus to be a righteous
man, and "all the people that came together to that sight" smote their
breasts (Luke XXIII:47, 48), "and all His acquaintance and the women
that followed Him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding these things"
(Luke XIII:49). Joseph of Arimathæa obtains Jesus' body from Pilate, and
lays it in a new sepulchre, hewn in stone (Luke XXIII:50-53), "and the
women also, which came with Him from Galilee, followed after and beheld
the sepulchre, and how His body was laid. And they returned and prepared
spices and ointments" (Luke XXIII:55, 56). No mention is made of any
guard over the sepulchre.

John does not mention the ill-treatment of Jesus by the soldiers, nor
any Simon of Cyrene. According to him, Jesus Himself carried His cross
(John XIX:17).[48]

The title on the cross, written in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, was "Jesus
of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."[49] The chief priests objected to
Pilate about this (probably considering it an insult to their nation),
but Pilate refused to change it (John XIX:19-22).

John says that Jesus' mother, His aunt, Mary Magdalene and the disciple
"whom He loved," stood by the cross. Jesus recommends His mother to this
disciple's care, and "from that hour that disciple took her unto his own
home" (John XIX:25-27).[50]

The vinegar was then given Jesus to drink, and, at the request of the
Jews, the soldiers broke the legs of the two who were crucified with
Jesus, but "they brake not His legs," because He was dead already. One
of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, "came there out blood and
water" (John XIX:28-37).[51]

John does not mention any supernatural occurrences at the time of Jesus'
death, Joseph of Arimathæa obtains Jesus' body "secretly" from Pilate,
and, with the aid of Nicodemus, wound the body in linen with spices--"A
mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight"--"as the
manner of the Jews is to bury" (John XIX:38-40). "Now, in the place
where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new
sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus
therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was
nigh at hand" (John XIX:41, 42). No mention is made of the attendance of
the women, or of any guard being placed about the sepulchre.


THE RESURRECTION

About dawn on Sunday morning, the two Marys came to the sepulchre (Matt.
XXVIII:1). The soldiers set to watch the tomb are there also (Matt.
XXVIII:4). There is a "great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord
descended from heaven, and came, and rolled back the stone from the
door, and sat upon it" (Matt. XXVIII:2). "His countenance was like
lightning, and his raiment white as snow" (Matt. XXVIII:3). The angel
tells the women that Jesus is risen, and bids them go quickly and tell
His disciples that He is risen from the dead; "and, behold, He goeth
before you into _Galilee_; there shall ye see Him" (Matt. XXVIII:6, 7).
As the women were on their way to tell this to the disciples, "Jesus met
them, saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and
worshipped Him" (Matt. XXVIII:9). Jesus says to them to be not afraid,
and to tell His brethren that He will meet them in _Galilee_ (Matt.
XXVIII:10). Some of the watch go into the city and tell the chief
priests what has happened (Matt. XXVIII:11). The chief priests give the
soldiers "large money" to say, "His disciples came by night and stole
Him away while we slept" (Matt. XXVIII:12, 13). The soldiers did as they
were taught, and "this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until
this day" (Matt. XXVIII:15). "Then the eleven disciples went away into
Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they
saw Him, they worshipped Him, but some doubted" (Matt. XXVIII:16, 17).
Jesus then tells them to teach and baptize "all nations" (Matt.
XXVIII:10).[52]

According to Mark, the two Marys and Salome come to the tomb early
Sunday morning "at the rising of the sun" (Mark XVI:1). There was no
watch there, and the stone was rolled away from the door of the
sepulchre (Mark XVI:2, 3). They go into the sepulchre and find there a
"young man, sitting on the right side, clothed in a long, white garment"
(Mark XVI:5). The young man says to them that Jesus is risen, and that
they should go and tell the disciples and Peter: "He goeth before you
into _Galilee_," where they should see Him (Mark XVI:6, 7). The women
fled quickly from the tomb, "neither said they anything to any man; for
they were afraid" (Mark XVI:8). Then, at some time and place not
specified, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (Mark XVI:9). She tells of
this appearance to "them that had been with Him, as they mourned and
wept," but they believeth not (Mark XVI:10, 11). "After that He appeared
in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the
country. And they went and told it unto the residue: Neither believed
they then" (Mark XVI:12, 13). Afterward, at a time and place not
specified, Jesus appears to the eleven "as they sat at meat," and
upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart in not
believing the accounts of His previous appearances to Mary and the two
disciples (Mark. XVI:14). He then delivers a short exhortation to go
into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, telling of
the signs that should follow belief, and the punishment that should
follow unbelief (Mark XVI:15, 18). "So then, after the Lord had spoken
unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of
God" (Mark XVI:19).[53]

Luke relates that the two Marys, Joanna and "other women" went to the
tomb on Sunday, "very early in the morning" (Luke XXIV:1, 10). There is
no watch and the stone is rolled away (Luke XXIV:2). They enter the
sepulchre, find the body of Jesus gone, and, as they stand there "much
perplexed," "behold, two men stood by them in shining garments" (Luke
XXIV:3, 4). They were afraid, but the two men tell them that Jesus is
risen, as He had predicted, and as they now remember (Luke XXIV:5, 6, 7,
8). The women then return and tell "all these things unto the eleven and
to all the rest," but "their words seem to them as idle tales, and they
believed them not" (Luke XXIV:9, 11). Peter then goes to the sepulchre,
finds the linen clothes "laid by themselves," but apparently sees
nothing of the two men (Luke XXIV:12).

On the same day Cleopas[54] and another disciple go to a village called
Emmaus, about three score furlongs from Jerusalem (Luke XXIV:13, 18).

As they are proceeding on their way, Jesus, in the guise of a stranger,
joins them. Quite a long conversation follows, the disciples telling
Jesus the things that had happened to Him, and He expounding the
Scriptures to them. It is evening when they reach the village, and Jesus
"made as though He would go further." But the two disciples induce Him
to tarry with them (Luke XXIV:15-29), "and it came to pass as He sat at
meat with them, He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to
them. And their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished out
of their sight" (Luke XXIV:30, 31).

The two return to Jerusalem and, finding the eleven there, say to them,
"The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to _Simon_" (Luke XXIV:32,
33, 34). They then tell the disciples what happened to them on the way
(Luke XXIV:35). "As they thus spoke, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of
them" (Luke XXIV:36). The disciples are terrified, and "supposed that
they had seen a spirit" (Luke XXIV:37). Jesus then tells them to see and
handle His hands and feet, and prove that He is real flesh and bones and
not a spirit. But "they yet believed not for joy, and wondered." To
finally convince them He eats before them a piece of broiled fish and
some honeycomb (Luke XXIV:38-43). He then delivers a short discourse to
them, telling that these things have happened to Him that the Law and
the prophets might be fulfilled (Luke XXIV:44-49). They then went out to
Bethany and He blessed them, and "while He blessed, He was parted from
them and carried up into heaven" (Luke XXIV:50, 51).

John says that Mary Magdalene came along to the sepulchre and found the
stone rolled away (John XX:1). She then summons Peter and John, who
enter and find the grave clothes lying around, but no body. They then
"went away again unto their own home." It is added, "For as yet they
knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead" (John
XX:2-10). Mary remains weeping, and, looking again into the sepulchre,
sees two angels in white there (John XX:11, 12). They ask her, "Why
weepest thou?" and she says, "Because they have taken away my Lord and I
know not where they have laid Him" (John XX:13). She then turns and sees
Jesus standing, but supposes Him to be the gardener. She asks Him to
tell her where they have laid Jesus, "and I will take Him away," she
says (John XX:14, 15). Jesus then calls her by name, and she apparently
recognizes Him and calls Him Master (John XX:16). Jesus then tells her,
"Go unto my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your
Father, and to my God and your God" (John XX:17). Mary then reports
these things to the disciples, but John does not say whether they
believed her, or, as Mark and Luke say, they disbelieved her (John
XX:18). On this same Sunday evening, when the eleven, except Thomas, are
together secretly for fear of the Jews, Jesus came to them and showed
them His hands and side. Then follows a short discourse from Jesus to
His disciples (John XX:20-23). When Thomas hears of this appearance, he
expresses his disbelief, unless he can put his fingers into the print of
the nails, and thrust his hand into His side (John XX:24, 25). Eight
days later Jesus appears again to His disciples, when Thomas is present,
and tells the latter to make his verifications. Thomas says unto Him,
"My Lord and my God." Jesus then commends those who "have not seen, and
yet have believed" (John XX:26-29).

John's Gospel apparently at one time ended at this point (John XX:30,
31), but Chapter XXI was subsequently added. Here there is related a
third appearance of Jesus, this time to six of the apostles and
Nathaniel of Cana (John XXI:1, 2). This occurred at the sea of Tiberias,
and there was a miraculous draught of fishes (see Luke V:4, 5, 6), and a
hint of Peter walking on the water (see Matt. XIV:28-31). At first the
disciples "knew not that it was Jesus," and, even after John tells Peter
that it is the Lord, they seem to be under some restraint, "and none of
the disciples durst ask Him, Who art thou, knowing that it was the
Lord" (John XXI:3-12). After they had dined, there ensued some
conversation between Jesus and Peter, and later with John, out of which
came the saying that the latter should not die (John XXI:15-23).

In neither of these appearances is there any account of Jesus ascending
up into heaven, or of His instructing the disciples to preach His Gospel
to all nations.[55]




PART II


MODERN CHRISTIANITY

With the death of Jesus, died also His dream of converting the Jews to
His religious ideas. A few scattered bands of followers--Nazarites or
Ebionites--survived Him. But they existed only in a moribund condition,
exerted no influence over the nation, and, in the course of a few
centuries, disappeared from history. The Jews as a people rejected, and
have always rejected, both Jesus as a Messiah and His teachings as their
religion. If the Jews had then been an independent nation, living in
their haughty isolation from other peoples, the power and hatred of the
Pharisees would probably have stamped out the last remnants of Jesus'
followers, and He would have survived only as a name in history. But the
disciples (or apostles) found under the Roman rule protection for their
teaching, and ready access to the Gentile communities, not only in
Palestine, but throughout all the coasts of the Mediterranean. Among
these communities Jesus' Gospel found a quick and ready acceptance, and,
within two or three centuries after His death, it had become a mighty
living force in the evolution of mankind. In the reign of Constantine,
Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman empire, and it
rapidly brought under its influence the Northern Barbarians, who, in
their turn, were to be the conquerors of this empire.

As Christianity grew and spread and became more powerful, it lost almost
all resemblance to the religion of "right living," which Jesus had
taught and practiced. The spiritual and temporal powers were once more
re-united, dogmas, creeds, theological disquisitions multiplied, "until
the fair body of religion, revealed in almost naked purity by the
prophets, is once more hidden under a new accumulation of dogmas and of
ritual practices of which the primitive Nazarene knew nothing; and which
He would probably have regarded as blasphemous if He could have been
made to understand them."

"As, century after century, the ages roll on, polytheism comes back
under the disguise of mariolatry and the adoration of saints; image
worship becomes as rampant as in old Egypt; adoration of relics takes
the place of the old fetich-worship; the virtues of the ephod pale
before those of holy coats and handkerchiefs; shrines and calvaries make
up for the loss of the ark and of the high places; and even the lustral
water of paganism is replaced by holy water at the porches of the
temples. A touching ceremony--the common meal originally eaten in pious
memory of a loved teacher--was metamorphosed into a flesh-and-blood
sacrifice, supposed to possess exactly that redeeming virtue which the
prophets denied to the flesh-and-blood sacrifices of their day; while
the minute observance of ritual was raised to a degree of punctilious
refinement which Levitical legislators might envy. And with the growth
of this theology, grew its inevitable concomitant, the belief in evil
spirits, in possession, in sorcery, in charms and omens, until the
Christians of the twelfth century after our era were sunk in more
debased and brutal superstitions than are recorded of the Israelites in
the twelfth century before it."

(Some Controverted Questions, Huxley, p. 159.)

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the leaders of the
Reformation and the New Learning began their relentless warfare upon the
existing formalism and superstition, and from two different points of
attack. After centuries of bloody wars, Protestantism succeeded in
displacing Catholicism as the dominant religion over a large part of
Northern Europe. Roman Catholicism still remained dominant in Southern
Europe, and Greek Catholicism in Eastern Europe. In the meanwhile, to
the eternal disgrace of the then Christendom, the followers of Mahomet
had established his religion in some of the fairest portions of
Southeastern Europe. If the Christian nations of the fifteenth century
had expended on the practical cause of keeping Mohammedanism out of
Europe one tithe of the energy and sacrifice that they did expend on the
unpractical dream of recovering the Holy Sepulchre, Europe would have
been spared the endless heritage of evil that has followed the
introduction of the unspeakable Turk into European politics. But mutual
jealousies, prejudices, petty ambitions, dissentions and discords
permitted this calamity to occur, the end of which it seems is not yet.

As the Reformed churches became established in power, each one developed
its own formalism, different from, but no more in consonance with,
Jesus' simple religion, than that of the Catholics. As dogmatic
theologians, Luther, Calvin, Knox and Jonathan Edwards were little
improvement over Loyola, Augustine and Justin. Predestination,
fore-ordination, change of heart, infant damnation, eternal punishment,
the Thirty-nine Articles, the Augsburg Confession, would have been as
unintelligible to Jesus, and would have met as summary condemnation at
His hands, as the quarrels between the homoi-ousians and the
homo-ousians, which rent the Christian world in the third century after
His death.

But a more formidable champion had entered the lists against dogmatic
theology and in favor of the creedless religion of Jesus. The invention
of printing, the growth of science, the diffusion of education, and the
development of a world-wide commerce were all working towards the
eradication of superstition, the breaking down of national and racial
and religious antipathies and prejudices, the cultivation of relations,
first of business, and then of mutual regard and friendship between the
peoples of different countries, the constant amelioration of the
roughness, harshness and cruelty of earlier times, the encouragement of
courtesy, consideration for others and charity towards all men. All
these forces were making for Jesus' ideal of a common humanity, where
the asperities of different religious creeds would cease to trouble, and
each man might love his neighbor as himself. A tremendous victory had
been won when the time came, that an Orthodox Catholic would admit that
his righteous-living Protestant neighbor might inherit heaven as surely
as himself.

The optimist of the early years of this century might have hugged
himself with complacency over the rapid progress which the Gospel of
Jesus was making in moulding mankind towards a realization of His
ideals. Then came the cataclysm of 1914. The leading nations of
Europe--all Christian except the Turks--plunged into the bloodiest war
of history, and on the most petty of pretexts--the political
administration of an insignificant Balkan state. The Gospel of Jesus, as
an efficient force restraining these nations from war, was as though it
had never existed. In the communications between England, France, Russia
and Germany, preliminary to the war and ostensibly seeking to avert war,
did any one statesman urge the argument that the law of Jesus forbade
this war? Not a single syllable, and, for the sufficient reason, that
each one knew that it would fall on deaf ears and would be laughed at as
"old women's talk." So far as the efficiency of such arguments was
concerned, they might as well have been used between the Persians and
Egyptians before Jesus was born.

Then, when war broke out, came the supreme irony of each nation crowding
its churches to pray for the assistance of the meek and gentle Jesus in
slaughtering its enemies. Later, the victorious nations crowded their
churches to thank Jesus that He had made them successful in their
hellish business.

There are some who can quiet their consciences by shifting the
responsibility for the incalculable misery of this brutal, barbarous
conflict from the sins and evil ambitions of man to the shoulders of the
Almighty. With those holding this (to the writer) blasphemous doctrine,
argument is useless. But to the ordinary, sincere and candid follower of
Jesus, does not the occurrence of this war give occasion to pause and
think--as it were, to take an account of his stock-in-trade? Why did the
mighty forces of Christianity fail to work with any practical effect at
this, their supreme test--the prevention of war? What promise has the
future to prevent the recurrence of such evils? How far has modern
Christianity kept undefiled the pure religion of the Great Nazarene?

These are all questions demanding at this time the serious consideration
of every thinking man, professed Christian or not.


THE ETERNAL CONFLICT

The Gospel of Jesus proclaimed the highest ethical ideal that had yet
appeared on earth. But, as a working rule-of-conduct for practical,
everyday life, it contained an essential weakness. With its acceptance
by one nation after another, it became an efficient force, working with
other forces in the evolution of mankind. But here it came in direct
conflict with the forces of nature, which, working through countless
ages, had made man what he then was. The ultimate goal of man's
struggles and aspirations under the Gospel of Jesus was self-abnegation,
non-resistance, the protection of the weak by the strong. The ultimate
goal of nature's forces was self-assertion, battle, the crushing out of
the weak by the strong. The struggle for existence and the survival of
the fittest had no place in their operation for the doctrines of
"turning the other cheek," and "loving thy neighbor as thyself." The two
were, and always will be, as incompatible as fire and water.

When the Germans, some fifty years ago, began dreaming of, and planning
for, a world empire, some of their philosophers clearly recognized, and
openly proclaimed, the essential antipathy between the forces of
Christianity, working towards Jesus' ideal, and the forces of nature,
working towards the survival of the fittest. In order to realize her
dream, it was necessary for Germany to treat the Sermon on the Mount as
the piping of some "idle singer of an empty day."

On the assumption that the "manifest destiny" of the Germans was to be
world-conquerors, these philosophers argued, with unassailable logic,
that the nation had made a vital mistake in abandoning the heathen gods
for the Jesus of Christianity. World-conquest demands of its aspirant
merciless severity, even to the enslavement or annihilation of any
unoffending people, which the "necessity of war" considers to be
impeding its progress. In so far as the individual imbibes, and is
affected by, the ideals of Jesus, just so far is his efficiency as a
unit of the conquering nation impaired. World-conquerors can tolerate
no "conscientious objectors" in their ranks. Logically their gods should
be the gods of the old Valhalla, Valor, Glory, Victory. Their priests
should preach war and hate, not peace and love.

With a courage and consistency that left nothing unsaid, these German
writers tore in twain the veil of hypocrisy with which Christian nations
cover up their wars, and their schemes of colonization, benevolent
assimilation, etc. They showed forth the naked truth that Jesus' ideal
and nature's goal for man are the antipodes of each other, at least as
regards different nations struggling with each other for supreme power.
In other words, the forces of Christianity are working in one direction,
and the forces of nature in another.

As with the Nation, so with the Individual.

Jesus (stating His ideal standard, it must be remembered) says: "Go and
sell that thou hast and give to the poor" (Matt. XIX:21).

Nature says: Not so. If you had done this in the beginning, you would
now have nothing with which to help the poor. If you do it now, you will
simply be adding yourself and your family to increase the number of the
poor.

Jesus says: "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither
for the body, what ye shall put on" (Luke XII:22).

Nature says: Take thought for the morrow and provide for the future of
yourself and your family; practice economy, frugality, thrift; see to it
that the contingency of sickness, or the coming of old age, does not
bring you and those dependent on you into the ranks of the poor, seeking
aid from others.

The contrast between the two goals is as sharply defined in the case of
the individual as in the case of the nation.

From this it does not follow that nature's forces do not make for
altruism. As the family, the tribe or clan, the race, and the nation are
successively evolved, the scope of self-interest widens and the means
necessary to attain its ends become less individualistic and more
humanitarian. As Fagin impresses on Noah Claypole, even in a band of
thieves, the number one of Noah must also include the number one of the
other members of the gang. In a modern community, whether Christian or
heathen, the successful business or professional man must necessarily
practice, to a greater or less degree, the same virtues inculcated by
Jesus; otherwise he makes himself an outcast--an Ishmaelite--against
whom every man's hand is turned.

"Honesty is the best policy" of the utilitarian leads to the same
results as the Gospel maxim "to deal justly with all men."

Also the growth of a world-wide commerce, with the accompanying spread
of international law, develops constantly a spirit of international
morality. A nation today, planning a war, must look beyond the question
of how its course will affect the self-interest of other nations. If it
has wisdom in its councils, it must also reckon with this spirit of
international morality. If its cause be too palpably unjust, or the
means it adopts to secure victory be too barbarous, it may shock this
international morality, and bring upon itself unexpected enemies, who
may balk its best laid plans. The possibility of such contingencies
arising will have far more weight than any argument based on the
teaching of Jesus.


THE NECESSITY OF COMPROMISE

In Physics a body acted on by two divergent forces takes a course which
is the resultant of (a compromise between) the two different forces. So,
if Christianity is to survive as an efficient force in man's evolution,
compromises must be made between the ideals of Jesus and the natural
forces expressed in the terms of the struggle for existence and the
survival of the fittest. It is possible that the day may come, when all
nations of our planet may be converted, to put into practical operation
in international affairs the ideals of Jesus. But the experience of the
world during 1914 shows that little, if any, progress has been made in
that direction since the Crucifixion. Suppose the Christian nations of
Europe and America should announce today the doctrine of non-resistance,
dismantle their fleets and dismiss their armies, how long would it be
before the Moslems, or the "yellow hordes" of Asia, would enslave them
and exterminate all Christian religion and civilization? Fortunately,
such a result is unthinkable, and the Christian nations will, until some
unknown time in the future, continue their compromise with Jesus'
ideals. The unspeakable Turk will continue to understand that, if he
massacres some Christian villages, the other cheek will not be turned to
him, but, on the contrary, a righteous retribution of bayonet and shell
will be meted out to him.

A superficial glance at history illustrates the necessity of national
compromise.

If Moses had preached, and the Jews had put in practice, the doctrine of
non-resistance, they would soon have been exterminated by their
Philistine neighbors, and the Jesus that was would never have been.

If the tribes of the northern barbarians in the first thousand years of
our era had put into practical effect the Sermon on the Mount, as soon
as they accepted Christianity, there would have been no Anglo-Saxon
England and United States, as they are today.

If Ferdinand and Isabella had not relied on their earthly weapons, Spain
would probably have been Moslem to this day.

If the Christian powers had not warred against the Turks in the
sixteenth century, the greater part of Europe would have bowed the knee
to Mahomet, and the Mosque would have superseded the Church as the
authorized place of worship.

If our colonial ancestors had obeyed the injunction, "Render to Cæsar
the things that are Cæsar's," there would have been no American
Revolution.

If the "conscientious objectors" had swayed the councils of the North in
1861, we would now have a divided country, with slavery firmly
established in one-half of it.

As with the nation, so with the individual, a compromise between Jesus'
ideals and the forces of nature is a necessity, at least until evolution
has produced some fundamental change in human nature.

It is related that when the mother and brethren of Jesus sought to speak
with Him, He repudiated their special claims of relationship on Him, and
said: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven,
the same is my brother, and sister and mother" (Matt. XII:50; Mark
III:31; Luke VIII:19).

In another place He says: "He that loveth father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is
not worthy of me" (Matt. X:37).

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple" (Luke XIV:26).

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake,
shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" (Matt.
XIX:29).

"And He said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first
to go and bury my father.

"Jesus said unto him, let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and
preach the kingdom of God" (Luke IX:59, 60).

Now, no sane man would advocate that doctrines such as these should be
put into general, practical operation under the present constitution of
human nature. Their practice would make of man a selfish ascetic, would
disintegrate the family into its individual units, like animals when the
breeding season is past, would discourage human progress and
development, and would eventually lead to the degradation or extinction
of any society which attempted to consistently enforce them. Of course
the individual man or woman may abjure family ties altogether, without
serious loss to the community and even perhaps with some gain, just as
the drones have a function to perform in a community of bees. But the
universal adoption of this practice by a human community would mean its
speedy death. With those who would regard this as a desirable outcome of
Jesus' teachings, we have no argument.

There is, however, no danger of such a condition of affairs coming to
pass. For untold ages before these utterances of Jesus, nature had been
developing the family affections in man. It had made the family the
fundamental unit of the tribe, the clan, the race, the nation. These
family affections, so planted by nature in man, must, in society as a
whole, override the ethical idea of a general philanthropy, as embodied
in these utterances of Jesus. The normal man has always, and does now,
rank the duties to his family as paramount over those of general
philanthropy.

Man will continue to marry and have children in the future, as he has in
the past. He will continue to regard his obligations to his family as
superior and prior to those he owes to mankind in general. He will feel
within himself the urge, not merely to satisfy the need of the day, but
also to provide for the future. He will look forward to the education
and outfitting of his children. He will guard against the contingencies
of sickness and the probabilities of old age coming upon himself and
those dependent on him. He will engage with all his energy in the
struggle with his fellow men for the acquisition of property. He will
practice industry, thrift and economy, and take every fair means to push
his own business at the expense of his competitors.

But in all this, even allowing that he has reasonably practiced the
virtues of generosity, charity and philanthropy, there is no disguising
the plain, naked truth that is all the time making compromises with the
ideals of Jesus. His actions simply do not square with the maxims: Give
all thy goods to the poor; take no thought for the morrow; every one who
does the will of God is the same to you as your brother and sister and
mother; resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also; whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain; give to every man that asketh of thee, and of
him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you; lay not up for
yourselves treasures upon earth; take no thought, saying, What shall we
eat? Or, What shall we drink? Or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? He
that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.

It is difficult to conceive how, at the present stage of man's
evolution, any community of considerable size, even if we assume all
external hostile interference eliminated, could put these ideals into
practical effect without disaster. As we know man, he has become what he
is only through strife and contest, through the survival of the strong,
the industrious, the provident over the weak, the lazy, the improvident.
If the struggle for existence is eliminated, is there not every reason
to expect that progress will be arrested, and the nation's civilization
will decay and finally disappear, as has been the case so many times in
the past history of the world? The desire for the acquisition of private
property and the lust for power have been the two dominant motives
impelling men to raise themselves from a stage of barbarism to a stage
of civilization. What motives can be substituted for those that will
have the same compelling, driving force? It is only by long centuries of
hard fighting with material weapons that the powers of good have so far
subdued the powers of evil as to establish our present standard of
humanitarianism. But if the good are to be confined to the weapon of
moral suasion, how long will it be until the powers of evil are in full
control?

But, further, even if we assume that all evil-doers are converted from
the error of their ways, the economic problem for a community working
under these ideals seems insoluble. Even under the grinding necessities
of the struggle for existence, the tendency of human populations to
increase beyond their means of subsistence is an indisputable fact, as
soon as they develop a civilization where peace and security of private
property are measurably assured, and especially where manufacturing
centers with large industrial populations are established. The many
ancient civilizations that have arisen, flourished and decayed attest
the truth of this fact. In the seventeenth century England was
confronted with the problem of inadequate means of subsistence, and met
it by spreading over the whole globe. What the history of the English
people would have been if they had been confined to their native island,
would afford an interesting subject for abstract philosophical
speculation. Thus far, the vast undeveloped territories of the United
States have furnished an outlet for its surplus population. But the time
may not be far distant when the problem of subsistence may be a serious
one with us. In modern times, nearly all the great nations have been
struggling for the acquisition of new territories as an outlet for their
expanding populations. Germany's economic needs were undoubtedly one of
the strongest motives urging her onward in her fateful dream of world
empire. France attempts to meet the difficulty by voluntary, individual
action in limiting the birth rate. This remedy will always be resorted
to in highly civilized nations, as the pressure of population on
subsistence becomes more severe. But the decrease of population means
the arrest of growth and progress in the national organism, and eventual
decadence.

Thus dark and uncertain is the economic outlook for nations where the
competitive struggle for existence is in full sway, where the
acquisition and accumulation of private property are fostered and
encouraged, where thrift, industry and saving are ranked as cardinal
virtues, and where proper provision for oneself and one's family is even
enforced by law against the indolent and shiftless. What must be the
economic future of a community from which these incentives and
restraints are banished, and where sympathy for the unfortunate and the
criminal, regardless of merit or desert, is to be the governing
principle?

It follows, then, first, that the nation, in its international
relations, must compromise with the ideals of Jesus in order to preserve
its national existence, and to safeguard Christianity against the
attacks of its external foes; and second, that the individual, in his
daily life, must compromise with these ideals to preserve the well-being
and continuity of the family and to ensure the progress of mankind in
happiness, morality and material prosperity.


COMPROMISE IS JUSTIFIABLE

The Crucifixion was but a few years old when those two old enemies whom
Jesus had fought so persistently--creeds and ceremonies--began to be
active among the early Christians. _Right theological thinking_ began to
assert its supremacy over the _right practical living_, taught by Jesus
as the first essential of His professed followers. The outside of the
cup was being carefully polished up, although the inside might be
unclean. Paul, who had never had any personal intercourse with Jesus,
was the protagonist of this retrograde movement. Zealous, energetic, a
ready writer and a subtile dialectician, his numerous epistles furnished
an arsenal of weapons for all future controversial theologians. His
arrogance in defining the tenets of the rapidly growing Gentile Church
was not one whit abated by the fact that he had never been in personal
contact with Jesus, and that in his views he was opposed to those who
had been the most intimate associates of Jesus during his entire
prophetic career. Quite early in his ministration, Paul has a bitter
quarrel with Peter, James, Cephas, John (the pillars) and other
disciples of Jesus over some question of circumcision, and has no
hesitation in telling Peter (the "rock" of the new Church) to his face
that "he was to be blamed" for his views (Galatians II:11 et seq.).

It is not too much to say that he took the fair, smiling child of
religion, as left by Jesus, and transformed it into a misshapen dwarf,
with twisted and contorted limbs, and upon its face a frown of almost
malevolent austerity.

When right theological thinking became established as the primary
essential of a Christian, and especially when Christianity acquired
temporal power, it was inevitable that there should be extracted from
Paul's militant writings that most abominable doctrine of "No compromise
with evil." In company with dogmatic distinctions of orthodoxy and
heterodoxy, it has inflicted its full quota of misery and suffering upon
the human race. It formed the justification of the cruelties of the
Inquisition, the religious persecutions and wars of the Middle Ages, the
conversion of savages by fire and sword, the extermination of so-called
witches, and the burning at the stake of countless advanced thinkers in
science and religion, and other so-called heretics.

Probably the unrecorded suffering which the advocates of this doctrine
have inflicted in the domestic and social sphere would equal that which
is written in political history. The possession of, and disposition to
put into practical operation, this dogma presupposes sublime egoism,
coupled with a narrowness of mind easily running into extreme bigotry.
For the slightest study of history will show that the error and evil of
one age becomes the truth and good of a succeeding age. But the
non-compromiser ignores any consideration of that sort. If he has
decided that this and that are evil, they must necessarily be evil
without argument or appeal. He is the legitimate descendant of the old
inquisitors, and, if he had the temporal power, would today enforce his
ideas as ruthlessly throughout the nation as they did in the Middle
Ages. Confined to the narrower limits of the domestic and social circle,
he plays the autocrat so far as he can. Without sympathy or toleration
for differing opinions and tastes, as husband, father, priest, officer,
or citizen, the non-compromiser seeks to fit every one to his own
_narrow_ Procrustean bed.

Closely allied to the non-compromisers are the sacro-sancts, or those
who would be holier than Jesus.

This class is well illustrated in an incident taken from a recent novel.
The heroine consults her married sister about the heroine's contemplated
marriage with a man who has divorced his wife on the ground of her
adultery. The sister declares that such a marriage would be no better
than prostitution. "But he is legally divorced" says the heroine. "Yes,
according to man's law, but not according to God's law," says the
sister. Now, considering that divorce was permitted under God's law, as
recorded in the Old Testament, that Matthew twice clearly and explicitly
states that Jesus sanctioned divorce on the ground of adultery, and that
John mentions no condemnation of divorce by Jesus, it would seem that
there was at least a fair doubt as to whether the heroine's proposed
marriage was contrary to God's law. But the sister, like other
sacro-sancts and non-compromisers, arrogates to herself infallibility in
interpreting the divine will, and will not admit argument as to her
possible inaccuracy.

Other examples are those who would fear to contaminate their holiness by
following their Master's example in eating and associating with
publicans and sinners (Matt. IX:10); who would shudder at being anointed
by a prostitute (Luke VII:37); who would think the Sabbath desecrated by
pleasant walks in the fields, or by feasting and joyous meetings with
one's friends (Matt. XII:1; Luke XIV:1), and who in general insist on
the observance of religious rites and symbols, similar to those which
Jesus condemned in the Pharisees.

One of the XXXIX Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church takes
a slap at these sacro-sancts (Book of Common Prayers, Article
XIV). It condemns, as marks of "arrogancy and impiety," works of
supererogation--that is, works over and above God's commandments.
Undoubtedly the meaning here is, not to condemn excess in acts of mercy
and charity, but excess in the same acts of ceremonial worship which
Jesus condemned in the Pharisees: Long prayers, "standing in the
synagogues" (churches), instead of in their "closet"; public fasting
with "a sad countenance," so that they "disfigure their faces," instead
of anointing their heads and washing their faces "that they appear not
unto men to fast," making "broad their phylacteries" and giving
ostentatiously their "tithe of mint and anise and cummin" (Matt. VI:1-7,
16, 17, 18; XXIII:4-7, 23).

The dogma of non-compromise finds no support in the teaching and
practice of Jesus. He pictured the highest ideals for mankind. But He
was no bigot in demanding that fallible human beings should live up to
these ideals on pain of damnation. With His wonderful tolerance and
broadminded sympathy, He recognized that the happiness and progress of
the human race, in its present state of evolution, necessitated certain
compromises with evil. "As between two evils, choose the less," would be
much nearer His position than "no compromise with evil." A short study
of some of the episodes of His life will place this beyond dispute.

Jesus undoubtedly considered that riches were an evil (Matt. XIX:23, 24;
XIII:22; Mark X:23, 24; Luke XVIII:24, 25). He knows the "deceitfulness"
of riches, and that the temptations attending the possession of wealth
do not ordinarily make for righteousness. He advises that one should lay
up treasure in heaven rather than on earth (Matt. VI:19, 20; Luke
XII:33).

Riches, then, being an evil, the non-compromiser should logically regard
the rich man as a persistent evil-doer. He should constantly denounce
his evil ways, as those of any other malefactor. He should refuse him
his public association and friendship, since thereby he would be gilding
his misconduct with the gold of his own sanctity. If a priest, he should
charge his congregation to abstain from those habits of thrift and
economy which will result in bringing upon them this evil of wealth.

But Jesus was too sane and broad-minded not to see that the happiness of
mankind demanded a compromise with this evil. While warning against the
temptations of riches, He preached poverty, not as a necessity to
salvation, but as an ideal, to be attained and practiced by but a few.

Thus, in the case of the young man with "great possessions," Jesus,
according to Matthew prefaces His counsel to sell his goods and give to
the poor with the significant condition, "if thou wilt be perfect"
(Matt. XIX:21). To the same effect are the accounts of Mark and Luke.
"One thing thou lackest," viz., in order to be perfect (Mark X:21; Luke
XVIII:22). Evidently Jesus took the concrete case of the young man to
impress on His hearers one of His ideals--the high standard He set for
those who aspired to be His immediate followers and the ministers of His
Word. In His instructions to the twelve and the seventy, He laid down
rules of conduct which practically eliminated the acquisition or
possession of wealth (Matt. X:2, 9, 10; Mark VI:8, 9; Luke IX: 3; X:4).
But He set no such severe standard for the rank and file of His
followers, nor did He withhold His favor and countenance from the
possessors of riches, as though they were evil doers.

Nearly all the persons named in the Gospels as intimate friends and
associates of Jesus (outside of the apostles) were, apparently, more or
less prominent, and belonged at least to the well-to-do class. Joseph of
Arimathæa, a disciple of Jesus, and one "waiting for the Kingdom of
God," and who placed His body in the sepulchre, was a rich man (Matt.
XXVII:57; Luke XXIII:50, 51). Nicodemus, who assisted Joseph in the
burial, brought a hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes indicating
that he was not a poor man (John XIX:39). According to John he was the
man who came to Jesus by night and was a "ruler" of the Jews (John
III:1, 2; VII:50). Lazarus, whom Jesus "loved" and with whose family He
was very intimate (John XI:5; Luke X:38), could not have been a poor
man, since his sister anointed Jesus with an ointment "very precious"
and worth more than three hundred pence (Mark XIV:3, 4, 5).

On one occasion Jesus invites Himself to visit in the house of
Zacchaeus, who was "chief among the publicans," rich, and a "sinner"
(Luke XIX:1-7). Levi, the publican, gives a "great feast" for Jesus,
which He approves by His presence (Luke V:29). On another occasion He
goes to the house of one of the "chief Pharisees" to eat bread on the
Sabbath day (Luke XIV:1).

Several times He commends the qualities of thrift and economy (Matt.
XXV:21, 23; Luke XII:42-44; Matt. XXV:3, 4; XXIV:45, 46; Luke XIX:17,
19). He constantly extols charity--the generous giving to the poor--as
one of the chief virtues, but the practice of this virtue on a
considerable scale necessarily implies the prior accumulation of riches.

The evidence of the four Gospels proves that Jesus, without hesitation,
compromised with the evil of riches. He praised voluntary poverty as an
ideal for those who were supposing themselves to be already perfect,
and, perhaps, demanded it of His apostles and those who assumed to be
the ministers of His Word. But He imposed no such hard and fast rule for
the rank and file of His followers. He did not go about fanatically
denouncing the rich men as evil-doers and malefactors. On the contrary,
He made them His friends, singled them out for special marks of His
favor and regard, though constantly urging on them the deceitfulness of
riches and the necessity of generous giving to the poor. His friendship
for Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was so great that in her case He even
condoned the use of the precious ointment for a purpose which He must
have regarded as superfluous, instead of its being given to the poor
(Matt. XXVI:6; Mark XIV:3; John XII:3).

Other instances illustrate the readiness of Jesus to compromise with
evil--to choose the less of two evils--when the conditions of practical
human life demanded it. A notable instance of this was in the matter of
paying tribute to the Romans. Undoubtedly Jesus, like all the other
Jews, regarded the imposition on them of Roman sovereignty as an
injustice--as a very great evil. But, under existing conditions,
resistance to the Roman power was hopeless. A refusal to pay tribute by
the Jews would have brought on them imprisonment, death and countless
sufferings, and, if persisted in, would have resulted in the enslavement
or extermination of the race. In putting to Jesus the question: "Is it
lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not?" the Pharisees thought they
had framed a dilemma from which He could not escape. If He had been a
fanatical non-compromiser, He could only have answered the question in
the negative. The Pharisees would then have denounced Him to the Romans,
and thereby compassed His immediate death before His mission was
completed.

His answer, "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's,
and unto God the things that are God's"--is pregnant with meaning to all
religious bigots and fanatics if they could only open their minds to its
significance. This earth is not a heaven, and cannot be made one so long
as human beings are fallible and imperfect. Concessions and compromises
must be constantly made between the material necessities of the body and
the ethical ideals of the spirit. The economic ideal of the "greatest
good to the greatest number" can no more be ignored by the theologian of
today in formulating rules of conduct for humanity, than it was by Jesus
in His time. However wrong and unjust in theory it was for the Jews to
be subject to an alien race, still in practice the Roman rule was
reasonably mild and humane. As between resistance and obedience to this
rule, the latter was much the less evil. Consequently, Jesus wisely and
sanely compromised with this evil and both paid tribute Himself (Matt.
XVII:24-27), and advised His disciples to do likewise (Matt. XXII:21;
Mark XII:17; Luke XX:25).

Again, carrying out the same idea of compromising with the existing
evils of government, Jesus commands His disciples to "observe and do"
whatsoever is bidden by the scribes and Pharisees, who "sit in Moses'
seat," at the same time warning them not to imitate or follow the
Pharisees' "works" (Matt. XXIII:2, 3).

Undoubtedly Jesus considered it an evil "to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt. X:35). He could
foresee that this evil would result from the preaching of His Gospel.
But better this evil, even, if it sent a "sword" on earth, than the
greater evil that His Gospel should not be preached.

Unchastity in a woman is surely a most grievous evil. To the
non-compromiser, the "scarlet woman" is a symbol of the lowest depth of
vice, and no condemnation is too severe for her. But, on two occasions,
Jesus dismissed the erring woman with His forgiveness (John VIII:11;
Luke VII:47).

In fact, the two utterances of Jesus--"he that is without sin among you,
let him first cast a stone at her" (John VIII:7), and "why beholdest
thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam
that is in thine own eye" (Matt. VII:2)--cut at the very root of the
non-compromiser's position. For, in carrying on his crusade against his
pet evil-doers, it would be fatal to be obliged to stop to answer
objections that he may not be infallible in deciding what is evil, and
that he may himself have habits considered by others as evil as the one
he is denouncing. For instance, many a prominent non-compromiser among
the clergy is living in comparative ease, if not luxury. When he reads
the standard of living set by Jesus for the ministers of His Word (Matt.
X:9; Mark VI:8; Luke IX:3; X:4; XXII:35), he must admit that he is every
day compromising with the ideals of Jesus--with the evil of riches.

Compromise is the rule of human life. Each individual, as he tries to
follow the Socratic advice, "know thyself," finds that most of his
actions are a compromise between his good impulses and his evil
impulses. Few men are a Dr. Jekyll during the day and a Mr. Hyde during
the night. Most men are partly Jekyls and partly Hydes all the time. As
the individual makes his way in business and society, he learns more and
more every day, if he has common sense, the wisdom and advisability of
compromise. He that is always bent on "having his own way" will usually
find that his way does not go far, and results in unhappiness for
himself and others. Happy marriages are founded on a compromise of
individual tastes, habits and opinions. Parents win and retain the
affection of their children, not by imposing on them their own
inflexible laws of right and wrong, but by modifying these laws to meet
the different tastes, habits and opinions of the children. Success in
business, in law, in politics, is usually associated with the faculty of
making reasonable compromises. The wisest legislation is usually a
compromise between conflicting interests and opinions.

It is not too much to say that compromise is the corner stone of every
modern democratic society. It is a necessary consequence of the "rule of
the majority," since the majority of today may be the minority of
tomorrow. To find a society of his taste, the non-compromiser should
seek some negro tribe in darkest Africa, where the witch-doctors permit
no deviations from the prescribed theological cult. Or, in matters
political, he might find much to admire in the administrative system of
Louis the XIVth, with his famous aphorism, "L'Etat, C'est Moi."

In international affairs every treaty of peace, unless its terms are
dictated by a strong power to a weak one, is a compromise between the
opposing views of right and wrong held by the parties. Logically, the
non-compromiser should be generally opposed to treaties, as involving
necessarily some sacrifice of his principles of right to the demands of
the other party. In the period from 1844 to 1846, we narrowly escaped
war with England in the dispute over the boundary between ourselves and
Canada, because a strong Jingo, non-compromising party started the
popular cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight." This class of thinkers would
undoubtedly have opposed the celebrated compromises of Henry Clay,
which, whatever might have been said against them at the time, have, in
the light of history, the incalculable merit of having postponed the
inevitable conflict between the North and the South, until the former
had so grown in population and resources that it could preserve the
unity of the nation. Considering the hard, and sometimes doubtful
struggle, which the North went through in winning victory in the
sixties, there can be little doubt that the result would have been two
divided nations if the issues between the two sections had been
submitted to the arbitrament of arms in 1820, in 1832, or even in 1850.

As the intolerance of the non-compromisers will lead some of them to
oppose treaties of peace, so the same quality in others will lead them
to make nuisances of themselves in war.

During the Great War, the nations, especially England and the United
States, had considerable trouble with the "conscientious objector," who
is really a non-compromiser under a different name. Supposing him to be
honest in his opinions (as some of them were), the logic of his position
was unanswerable from the view-point of the non-compromiser. War is
unquestionably a great evil, and most obnoxious to the doctrines of the
Sermon on the Mount. If there is to be no compromise with evil, then a
Christian magistrate has no warrant to compel the conscientious objector
to go out and slaughter, or give his help, directly or indirectly,
towards the slaughter of his fellow Christians.

The true answer to this argument is, of course, obvious, although the
magistrates, themselves infected with this pernicious, non-compromise
doctrine, did not always make it.

In this fallible, imperfect human life, it is often necessary to
compromise with evil--that is, as between two evils, to choose the less.
Jesus both preached and practiced the doctrine of choosing the less
evil, even in the extreme case of war. For He urged the spreading of His
Gospel, although He foresaw that it would divide father from son and
bring "fire" and a "sword" upon earth (Matt. X:34; Mark XIII:8; Luke
XII:49). Now, in the case of this war, the vast majority of the nation
has decided that it is a less evil to go to war than to be enslaved by
Germany. So, war it is to be. But it is unjust--an evil of the greatest
magnitude--that a few individuals should reap all the benefits of
preserving the nation from German slavery, without bearing the
corresponding burdens. Consequently, the conscientious objectors must
either submit to the decision of the majority or seek some other
country, following the example of the Puritans, Huguenots and other
"conscientious objectors" of past times.

It is apparent that if the door is once opened to allow people to shirk
the civil duties imposed upon them by the society in which they live,
the exemption cannot be limited to the case of war alone on the ground
of their conscientious convictions. In the Supreme Court records
of one of our States (possibly in several), there will be found
a case where a man and woman (apparently respectable and generally
law-abiding citizens) suffered a criminal conviction, because they had
"conscientious objections" to legalizing their union by a conventional
marriage ceremony. It is easy to imagine a man having conscientious
objections to jury duty--the condemning men to death or imprisonment, or
the transferring of property from one to another on account of the
"technicalities" of the law. Or, why should a man not have conscientious
objections to paying his taxes if they are to be used, in part at least,
for a purpose which he considers evil? Evidently the field for evasion
is a large one, and the only protection for society is to rigidly insist
that the "conscientious objector," whether the case in hand be war or
something else, either submit himself to the will of the majority or
seek some other country more congenial to his peculiar ideas.

At the risk of repetition, we will collect again some of the utterances
of Jesus which seem irreconcilable with the narrow, intolerant ideas of
the non-compromisers and the sacro-sancts: Judge not, that ye be not
judged; he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at
her; how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull the mote out of thine
eye, and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye; blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy; blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall
be called the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble
himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of
heaven; joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than
over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance; on these
two commandments hang all the law and the prophets, viz., Love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind, and love thy neighbor as
thyself.


HYPOCRISY OR TRUTH

Hypocrisy did not die with the Pharisees. To an observer of modern life,
it might seem as if it has as rank and luxuriant growth today as in the
time of Jesus. The modern Christian must apparently keep up the
hypocrisy that he is always following Jesus, when, as a matter of fact,
he is every day making compromises with Jesus' ideals, in some instances
deviating widely from His teachings, and, in others, going diametrically
against them. The question is, if, in these points of divergence, it is
not better to speak the plain truth than to indulge in the hypocrisy of
"following Jesus." For instance, take the case of divorce laws. Jesus
explicitly condemned all divorces, except possibly on the ground of
adultery. His language is so definite, repeated in all three of the
Synoptics, that no quibbling over words or casuistry of logic can escape
the result. Consequently, when a Christian state authorizes divorce for
desertion, cruelty, drunkenness, etc., it is not following Jesus, but
going directly contrary to His laws. In this matter the Roman Catholics
are the orthodox Christians and most of the Protestants are heterodox.

The point here made has nothing to do with the expediency of these
divorce laws. The conditions of human life have so vastly changed--it is
quite possible that Jesus, speaking today, might lay down much less
stringent rules on this subject than He did two thousand years ago. The
important fact is that we have here an undeniable instance of
Christians, not only making a compromise with the acknowledged evil of
divorce, but also completely ignoring the views of Jesus in making the
compromise. Those who condone, or tacitly approve, these divorce laws
(as do the great majority of the Protestants in the United States)
should certainly be slow, in the matter of other evils, to urge "no
compromise with evil," or bring forward some utterances of Jesus as the
final argument on the subject. Let them first consider the beam in their
own eye.

It would probably surprise the professed follower of Jesus in present
times to realize in just how many matters he is not, in fact, following
Jesus. It may be well to enumerate a few of these important matters.
This is not done in a spirit of criticizing the weakness and
shortcomings of Christians, but because some of the questions involved
vitally affect the present and future welfare of society. In the
discussion of these questions the name and authority of Jesus are
frequently invoked, and very justly so. For, even those who do not
concede His parentage by the Holy Ghost, admire and revere Him as the
Greatest Teacher. His word or example on one side of a question is not
lightly to be disregarded. But, if it is found that, in some matters,
the followers of Jesus do compromise with, diverge from, or directly
contradict Jesus' teachings, then the ultimate query, becomes, not
whether Jesus said yes or no to the question in hand, but, conceding
that He said yes or no, Is there sufficient justification for departing
from His teaching in this matter, as has been done in other important
matters? Without noticing individual short-comings, sins of omission,
etc., which may be left to the individual conscience and its God, we
will take up only questions of wide import, affecting the present and
future welfare of societies and nations. Nor will we enter into the
field of theological disputation over conflicting or ambiguous texts,
but will cite no instance where Jesus has not made His position so clear
that there can be no dispute over it.

The following are instances where modern Christian communities
compromise with, diverge from, or go directly opposite to the teachings
of Jesus.

(a) Wars between two Christian nations where each invokes the assistance
of Jesus in the slaughtering of its enemies, and the victor thanks Jesus
for its success in the blood-thirsty game.

(b) The substitution of the first day of the week for the seventh, as
the Sabbath day.

(c) Divorces (at least for any cause except adultery).

(d) Public prayers and long prayers.

(e) Public fasting.

(f) Sunday Blue Laws.

(g) Prohibition as against Temperance.

(h) Creeds, articles of religion, pomp and ceremony in church services,
and other observances, which Jesus included in the word "sacrifice," as
opposed to "mercy."


(a) WAR

It is unnecessary to waste words in proving that war (at least between
two Christian nations) is utterly irreconcilable with the Sermon on the
Mount. But, as has been shown, it may, in any given case, be the less of
two evils, and therefore, justifiable, as a compromise. As to a
defensive war against a Moslem, Oriental or other infidel invasion,
which seeks to uproot the Christian faith and subjugate a Christian
nation, Jesus has apparently given His sanction to such a war (Matt.
X:34, 35, 36; Luke XII:51, 52, 53). It might, perhaps, even be argued
that this sanction covered an offensive war, the purpose of which was to
establish Christianity among an infidel people.

But, beyond this, some wars must be justifiable, as the less of two
evils, under Jesus' sane practice of compromising with evil. If the
independence (the life) of a nation is attacked, there is no warrant in
the four Gospels for supposing that Jesus would advise a policy of
passive non-resistance. Just as when the life of the individual, or the
life or honor of his mother, sister, or daughter are threatened by some
beast in human form, he is justified in resistance, although the taking
of human life results. A standard of ethics countenancing such a
surrender of the primary instincts of self-preservation might be suited
to a race of spineless invertebrates, but could never be accepted by
human beings, who are the evolutionary product of countless ages of a
struggle for existence.

But, conceding that some wars may be justifiable, the general rule holds
good that wars are un-Christian. The exception must be established
beyond a reasonable doubt. As between two Christian nations, the
one attacked can usually plead self-defense in at least partial
justification, but the aggressor must always have a difficult case to
maintain before the judgment seat of Jesus.

Looking back over the wars of the United States, there are few that
would stand the acid test of Jesus' judgment.

The war of the Revolution was due, in the last analysis, to the fact
that there were a large number of prominent men in the colonies
determined on independence at any cost. If war was a necessary means to
attain that end, these leaders were for war, without shilly-shallying
over the moral justification for the conflict. The men of that
generation were rather fond of attitudinizing, and were prone to the use
of high-sounding phrases like "no taxation without representation,"
"give me liberty or give me death," etc. The Declaration of Independence
starts out with one of those phrases--"All men are created equal, and
endowed with inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness." This was at that time such a palpable untruth and hypocrisy,
that one wonders if our forefathers had no sense of humor. Of course, to
be true, the sentence should have been added, "except certain persons of
African descent, whom we hold and propose to hold as slaves."[56]

Stripping the grievances of the colonists of their heated and
declamatory rhetoric, their real sufferings under the misrule of Great
Britain were far less than those of the Jews under the Romans, when
Jesus said, "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's." Many of the
foremost statesmen in England supported the justness of the colonists'
claims, and most of the obnoxious taxes were repealed before the
Declaration of Independence. With time and patience the difficulties
between the two countries could probably have been adjusted without war,
as was the case with Canada, except for the underlying desire of the
Americans for independence.

To avoid misunderstanding, it should be added, that, before the bar of
Nature--under the laws of the struggle for existence and survival of the
fittest--the colonies were fully justified in taking up arms when they
did. The pigheaded obstinacy of George III in insisting on his
"prerogatives," and the blind stupidity of his ministers in urging
measures of little value to England, but irritating to the colonies,
wounding their pride and making them apprehensive of future, more
serious encroachments on their liberties, furnished ample warrant for
ceasing longer to turn the other cheek.

Furthermore, before Nature's forum, the plea that the end justifies the
means, is always of controlling force. History proves that the
independence of the United States was sure to come sooner or later, and
that it was better for both countries and for the world that the two
nations should be under separate governments, and each work out its own
destiny.

The war of 1812 was, before the bar of Jesus, without any excuse, and,
like the Crimean war, was futile of results. The main questions at issue
between the United States and England, and about which the war started,
were not even mentioned in the final treaty of peace. The American
grievances were real enough, but a very moderate exercise of Christian
forbearance on England's part would have avoided any necessity of war.
These grievances, bad as they were, had been endured by the United
States for some twelve years, and a delay of some two years more would
have brought a natural end to them with the fall of Napoleon. This war
should never have occurred between two Christian peoples, and is
unjustified by any good results that followed from it.

The war with Mexico in 1848 was simply an aggressive, land-grabbing,
politicians' war, and will always be a blot on the Christianity of the
United States. The lands of which Mexico was robbed were of course of
great material value to the United States, but the less said about the
justness of their acquisition the better.

The question of the Civil War is complicated by the moral issue of the
abolition of slavery, underlying the political issue of the right of the
South to secede, which was the ostensible cause of the war. Slavery in
the United States was an evil, both ethically and economically, and, as
its abolition was a result of the war, that war is justifiable both in
the court of Jesus and in that of Nature. But that result was an
incident of the war, and the North would never have taken up arms on the
simple issue of forcing the abolition of slavery on the South.

On the ostensible, political issue which started the war--the right of
the South to secede from the Union--there is room for much difference of
opinion. Despite the technical and labored constitutional arguments of
Von Holst and others, it is rather difficult to understand why, if the
South believed that its happiness and prosperity were being imperiled by
a further continuance of its union with the North, it had not the same
right to break that union in 1861 as the colonies had the right to break
their union with England in 1776. At the outbreak of the war, there were
many in the North, beside Horace Greeley and Vallandingham, who thought
it morally wrong to compel the South by force to remain in a union that
had become hateful to it.

A great writer on American history (Sumner) has said that whenever some
geographical section of our country becomes saturated with the idea that
its material interests are being sacrificed to the interests of other
parts of the country, and it sees no hope of redress, it will begin to
talk secession. It was true of New England at the time of the Hartford
Convention. It was true of the South in 1820, 1831 and 1860. It was true
of the Pacific States shortly after the Civil War, when they feared that
Congress would not pass their desired Chinese Exclusion Acts.

It would be difficult to justify the Spanish War of 1898, in the court
of Jesus. It was mostly the work of the newspapers and politicians.
Nine-tenths of the people of the United States were ignorant of
suffering great grievances from Spain, until the Jingo journals
demonstrated the fact to them. It is safe to say that this war would
never have occurred if Spain had been a great naval power like Germany
or Great Britain. The same assertion may be made of the war against
Mexico in 1848. In studying the Jingo spirit which encourages wars, it
will usually be found that the strength of this spirit varies in the
inverse ratio to the supposed war-strength of the other party to the
fight. Nations are much like school boys in this respect. It is quite
probable that the war of 1812 would not have been brought on, except
for the mistaken idea of Henry Clay and his hot-headed followers from
the West that the United States could easily overrun Canada, and dictate
peace to England in Halifax.

Our participation in the Great War of 1914 was forced upon us, and was
amply justifiable, both in the court of Jesus and in that of Nature.
When Germany sunk our ships on the high seas, it struck at our
independence as a nation, as vitally as though it had invaded and seized
a part of our territory. On this issue we had waged war with England in
1812, and with the Algerine pirates in 1815. To have yielded this point
to Germany would have been the first step toward international slavery.

But the war itself was utterly unjustifiable. The fact that it could
occur nearly 2,000 years after the death of Jesus, only illustrates how
little actual progress the teachings of Jesus inculcating peace had made
against the forces of nature urging nations into conflict with each
other.

To the impartial student of our history, it must be apparent that the
Sermon on the Mount, so far as preventing wars, has been practically a
dead letter. The condemnation of war has been superficial and
insincere--nothing better than simple hypocrisy. It has been a service
of the lip and not of the heart. The outside of the cup has been kept
clean with a great parade of noble humanitarian sentiments, but the
inside has been full of corruption.

Except among some numerically small bodies like the Quakers and a few
others, there has never been any strong living, effective public
sentiment in the United States condemning wars as unrighteous, save as a
last extremity. This is well illustrated by our two disputes with
England over the Maine and Oregon boundaries. These boundary disputes
were most intricate and complicated, the evidence was uncertain and
conflicting, no question of principle was involved, and they were
eminently matters to be settled by negotiation, mutual compromise, or
arbitration. But in each case the Jingo clamor for war spread over the
whole country. Polk's campaign cry in 1844 was, "Fifty-Four Forty or
Fight." But there was no organized, effective opposition on the ground
that this war would be unrighteous and un-Christian. If England had been
as weak as Mexico, or if Tyler and Polk had been "fire-eaters," like
Andrew Jackson, we would, beyond doubt, have had war in each case,
although there could have been no justification for it in the court of
Jesus.

Every war, whether right or wrong, has been not merely condoned, but
fully approved by the vast majority of the religious people of our
country. Success in war has been the best stepping stone to the
Presidency, as is shown by the instances of Jackson, Harrison, Taylor
and Grant. There is no record of any Jingo statesman being punished by
his constituents for precipitating the United States into unnecessary
and unrighteous wars, and the supreme hypocrisy of all is, that, in
every war, whether morally justifiable or not, the followers of Jesus
crowd the churches to pray for His assistance, and to thank Him for
victory when won, as though He were sanctioning these infractions of His
Sermon on the Mount.

The late President Roosevelt has expressed his views on our wars, and he
may certainly be taken as fairly representative of a large portion of
the American people. He was a devout Christian, but singularly free from
hypocrisy. He was given to "speakin' out in meetin'," on occasions with
a frankness that was embarrassing to his followers, and even later to
himself.[57]

In his life of Thomas H. Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 261, he
says, in treating of this boundary dispute with Canada:

"The matter was sure to be decided in favor of the strongest; and, say
what we will about the justice and right of the various claims, _the
honest truth_ is, that the comparative _might_ of the different nations,
and not the comparative _righteousness_ of their several causes, was the
determining factor in the settlement. Mexico lost her northern provinces
by no law of right, but simply by the law of the longest sword--the same
law that gave India to England."[58]

On page 262 he says: "It would be untrue to say that Nations have not at
times proved themselves capable of acting with great disinterestedness
and generosity towards other peoples; but such conduct is not very
common at the best, and although it often may be desirable, _it
certainly is not always so_. If the matter in dispute is of _great
importance_, and if there is a _doubt_ as to which side is right, then
the strongest party to the controversy is pretty sure to give itself the
benefit of that doubt; and international morality will have to take
tremendous strides in advance before this ceases to be the case."[59]

On page 268 he says: "No foot of soil to which we had any title[60] in
the Northwest should have been given up; we were the people who could
use it best, and _we ought to have taken it all_. The prize was well
worth winning, and would warrant a good deal of risk being run."

On page 289, in speaking of the final compromise and settlement of the
Oregon boundary dispute, he says: "Yet as there was no particular reason
why we should show any generosity in our diplomatic dealings with
England, it may well be questioned whether it would not have been better
to have left things as they were until we could have taken all. Wars
are, of course, as a rule to be avoided, but they are far better than
certain kinds of peace. Every war in which we have been engaged, except
the one with Mexico, has been justifiable in its origin, and each one,
without any exception whatever, has left us better off, taking both
moral[61] and material considerations into account, than we should have
been if we had not waged it."

These citations, reflecting, as they undoubtedly do, prevalent American
sentiment in the past and present, establish the utter hypocrisy of any
claim that the Sermon on the Mount has had any practical, effective
power in determining the actions of our nation concerning wars, whether
justifiable or not.


(b) SUNDAY AND THE SABBATH

It is uncertain just when Sunday (the first day of the week) began to be
generally observed among Christians as a holy day. The early Gentile
converts were naturally averse to all Jewish rites and ceremonies,
including circumcision, Sabbath-day observances, etc. It would seem
that, in St. Paul's time, more or less of them held the position that
all days of the week were alike, and no one of them especially holy
(Romans XIV:5, 6; Col. II:16, 17). But at least two or three centuries
had elapsed after Jesus' death, before Sunday was established as a day
holy to the Lord, and began to have attributed to it the sanctity with
which the Jews surrounded their Mosaic Sabbath.

Jesus never sanctioned the observance of the first day of the week as a
holy day. No text can be cited from the Old Testament, or the four
Gospels, that gives even color of authority to this observance. Sunday
is a purely human institution, established by the Christians of the
first five centuries, to suit their own convenience, or satisfy their
anti-Jewish prejudices. As a Biblical festival, it is no more sacred
than Monday or Tuesday, or any other day.

This matter is not commented on because of its practical importance,
since it would now be inadvisable to change our legal day of rest to
correspond with the Biblical Sabbath. But it affords a fair illustration
of the prevalent cant and hypocrisy of the day. How frequently do the
modern Pharisees denounce the man, who, for instance, goes fishing or
hunting on Sunday, instead of going to church, as a contemner of Jesus,
a violator of God's holy laws, etc., when in fact they have not the
slightest authority from Jesus to do so. Would it not be well for them
to consider the beam in their own eye? On this point, the Seventh-day
Baptists and others like them are the consistent followers of Jesus, and
not the Roman Catholics and the great bulk of the Protestants.


(c) THE HYPOCRISY OF DIVORCE

Under the Mosaic law a husband, dissatisfied with his wife, could "write
her a bill of a divorcement" if he had found "some uncleanness in her"
(Deut. XXIV:1; Matt. XIX:7).

According to Matthew, Jesus condemned divorce except for the cause of
"fornication" (Matt. V:32; XIX:9).

According to Mark and Luke, He condemned divorce for any cause (Mark
X:11; Luke XVI:18).

All the States of our Union, except New York and South Carolina,
authorize divorce on other grounds than adultery. In New York divorces
are granted only on the ground of adultery, and in South Carolina no
divorces are granted. (World's Almanac, 1920, pp. 369-371.)

In 1916, there were 1,040,778 marriages and 112,036 divorces in the
United States, of which about 11 per cent were on the ground of
"unfaithful." (World's Almanac, 1920, pp. 151-152.)

But the marriages of the Roman Catholics, about 1-7 of our population
(World's Almanac, p. 484), should fairly be excluded, since divorce is
practically non-existent among them. This would leave 890,000 marriages
to 112,000 divorces.

There was then, in 1916, something more than one divorce to every ten
marriages among our total population, or, excluding Roman Catholics,
something more than one divorce to every eight marriages.

In the face of these figures, it must be conceded that this prohibition
of Jesus has become practically a dead letter among the Protestant
Christians of the United States.

To the innocent party to a divorce, little, if any, stigma attaches
either in business, social or religious circles, and nothing but a
temporary condemnation is visited on the guilty party. The plain truth
is, that divorce has become a matter of everyday life, regrettable but
not sinful, and that, on this point, the followers of Jesus (excepting
the Roman Catholics) have simply substituted their ideas of right and
wrong for His.

It should be added again, to avoid misunderstanding, that it is not the
intention hereby to condemn our present divorce laws. On the contrary,
it is quite probable that, if Jesus were legislating for the complex
societies of today, instead of for the comparatively simpler
civilization of His day, He would materially modify His stringent views
on divorce, in a sane concession to the weakness and frailty of human
nature. Certainly, to one who has seen many ill-mated couples seeking
relief in the divorce courts, and subsequently making happy marriages,
to the mutual benefit of themselves, their children, their friends and
society in general, divorce laws cannot seem all evil. The children, if
there are any, are the main factor to be considered, and no conditions
of life are likely to be much worse for them than to be brought up by
two mutually unloving, unsympathetic parents, and, as usually happens,
in an atmosphere of continual bickering and quarreling.


(d) THE HYPOCRISY OF PRAYER

This subject has already been treated under Note 22, _supra_, page 23,
and it has been shown that Jesus clearly condemned public prayers, long
prayers and frequent prayers (Matt. VI: 5, 8).

The evils of the prayer-habit (as a public ceremony) are many and
obvious.

(1) It is a useless waste of time and energy that had better be expended
on works of mercy. God already knows what things we need, and will grant
them, if advisable, without prayer (Matt. VI:8). For instance, how much
time has been spent by the human race in praying for things which
subsequent events proved were, or would have been, injurious instead of
beneficial? How many there are, who, in looking back over their lives,
can see that the realization of one of their (at the time) dearest
wishes turned out later to be the most unfortunate thing that ever
happened to them.

(2) It encourages the formation of a low and unworthy conception of God
as a being to be propitiated and placated, like the deities of barbarous
peoples. Insensibly the idea grows that the more frequent and the more
zealous the prayers, the more likely they are to be granted. An instance
of this will be found in the custom started during the Great War of
every one on the streets and everywhere, praying exactly at noon for the
success of our armies. The idea underlying this was apparently that of
"a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together," although the
latter requirement was hardly fulfilled, since the prayers in New York
were several hours old before those in San Francisco were begun. Nothing
could be imagined much more inconsistent with Jesus' regulations on the
subject of prayer.

Furthermore, the prayer-habit begets a sickening tone of servility in
the worshipper, coupled with the ascription to the Deity of an equally
sickening love of adulation. In many prayer meetings the speakers seem
to vie with each other in seeking terms of humility and self abasement
for themselves (miserable worms being rather a favorite) and the most
exaggerated titles of honor for the Deity. One would think they were a
lot of grovelling slaves, prostrating themselves before the throne of
some barbaric despot. Take the "Te Deum," which is a prayer in the form
of a hymn. Can it be supposed that the fulsome adulation with which it
is filled can be pleasing to the God of the universe? And yet, why is it
sung, except on that supposition? What respect would we have for an
earthly father who delighted in having his children assemble every
morning, and chant their praises of his goodness, his excellence, his
power, etc.? And yet should not the ideal of the heavenly Father be
higher than that of the earthly father?

(3) The prayer-habit tends to emasculate the moral strength of its
devotees. It is much easier to pray to God for help and, so to speak,
shift the responsibility on Him, than to work out one's own troubles by
one-self. There is an old saying--Pray, but with thy hand on the plough.
Too much praying tends towards neglect of the plough, or, to use
Cromwell's phrase, the keeping one's powder dry.

(4) Another evil is that it tends to encourage a self-righteousness on
the part of its devotees (Luke XVIII:11). When prayer is regarded as a
duty, the sequel to a prayer-meeting is a feeling of satisfaction in
duty well performed. God has not only been well pleased by a display of
humility on the part of His worshippers, but has also been intelligently
advised on a variety of subjects, about which He may have been in
uncertainty.

Compare the prayer meeting of today with one according to Jesus'
precepts. There would be no long prayers (Matt. XXIII:14; Luke XX:47).
The meeting would open with the Lord's Prayer. Then, as each one thought
over his various sins of omission and commission, and repented of them,
he would arise and say, "God be merciful to me, a sinner" (Luke
XVIII:13). The peace and silent meditation of such a gathering would
tend to produce the humble and contrite heart, which is the offering
pleasing to God.

(5) But the worst evil, as pointed out by Jesus, is that of substituting
a false standard of righteousness, words for acts, sacrifice for mercy
(Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded as a duty and their performance
a meritorious act, their devotees are quite apt to become like the
Pharisees, who paid "tithe of mint, anise and cummin," but neglected
"judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23).

The average, easy-going Christian can without difficulty square his
account with God through numerous prayers, or even rest easy in his
conscience with a slight balance in his favor. But it must be
almost impossible for the believer in, and faithful adherent of,
prayer-meetings to rise to the sublime conception of the Almighty,
voiced not only by Jesus, but by the later prophets of the Old
Testament.

"Bring no more vain oblations (prayers or fasting): incense (prayers and
fasting) is an abomination to me. The new moons and Sabbaths (ceremonial
church services), the calling of assemblies (prayer-meetings), I cannot
away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and
your appointed feasts, my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am
weary to bear them."

"Learn to _do_ well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the
fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 17).

"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah VI:8).


(e) THE HYPOCRISY OF FASTING

This subject also, has already been discussed under note 20, _supra_,
but for convenience, reference is again made to the passages in which
Jesus condemns public fasting, or fasting as a ceremony (Matt. VI:16,
17, 18; Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33; Luke X:7).

Nearly everything which has been said under the last subhead concerning
public prayers applies with equal force to ceremonial fasting, and need
not be repeated here.


(f) SUNDAY BLUE LAWS

Assuming there is to be ascribed to the modern Sunday the same sanctity
as a holy day that should be accorded to the Sabbath which Jesus
observed, His views on the proper observance of the day are summed up in
the one sentence: "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the
Sabbath" (Mark II:27).

The basic idea of the old Puritan Sunday was the direct opposite of that
of Jesus. Following the old Mosaic law, which Jesus combatted, the
Puritans planned their celebration of the day for the "honor and glory"
of God, and not for the benefit of man. Conceiving this _God_, not as a
loving Father, but as a stern, austere Judge, who, according to Jonathan
Edwards, had reserved the bulk of mankind for burning, who demanded
"sacrifice" and not "mercy," and was therefore to be propitiated and
placated, the Puritan ministers succeeded, while they had the power, in
imposing on their congregations a most atrocious travesty of the Sabbath
of Jesus. Religious services were piled up like Pelion on Ossa, and
every movement of the day was marked by gloom and austerity. No wonder
that William Lloyd Garrison said of the observance of Sunday at a much
later date: "The Sabbath, as now recognized and enforced, is one of the
main pillars of priest-craft and superstition, and the stronghold of
merely ceremonial religion."

Jesus did not object to the Jewish observance of the Sabbath on the
ground that it was too "lax" (to use a modern term), but on just the
opposite ground--that certain of their restrictions on man's freedom of
action on that day were unnecessary. But the Sabbath of that time, as
the Jews celebrated it, and as, from all the accounts in the four
Gospels, Jesus celebrated it, was a day of joyous rest and recreation,
and in no sense a day of spiritual maceration.

"The same character of cheerfulness, of happy rest from the toil and
turmoil of the world's business; of quiet and peaceful return unto one's
self; of joyous communion with friends and kindred over good cheer--in
short, of mental and bodily relaxation and recreation that strengthens,
braces, pacifies, and maketh the heart glad, while the sublime ideas
which it symbolizes are recalled to the memory at every step and turn
seems to have prevailed at all times down to our own, among the Jews."

"Suffice it to reiterate that in every class, every age and every
variety of Jews, from first to last, the Sabbath has been absolutely a
day of joy and happiness, nay, of dancing, of singing, of eating and
drinking, and of luxury."

International Cyclopædia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.

This is the kind of a Sabbath which the Gospels picture Jesus as
celebrating, attending feasts in the houses of His friends, walking in
the fields with His disciples, or meeting with them in public places,
and healing the sick when occasion offered (Matt. XII:1; Mark II:23;
Luke VI:1; Luke XIV:1; John V:1, 2, 9; IX:1, 14).

Hard as it may be for Anglo-Saxon prejudice to admit, yet it seems to be
true, that the Spanish Sunday--mass in the morning and a bull-fight in
the afternoon--is nearer than the Puritan Sunday to Jesus' ideas of the
proper observance of the day, although He would probably approve, as
little as we do, that particular form of amusement.

There is at the present time a strong and perhaps growing tendency
towards enacting Sunday Blue Laws. By this is meant legislation
restricting man's freedom of action on that day, which is based, not on
any benefit to the individual or society, but on the old Mosaic idea of
the supposed sanctity of the day--that it is holy to the Lord and He
will be pleased by a ceremonial observance of it, different from other
days.

Insofar as the professed followers of Jesus urge the enactment of such
Blue Laws, it seems clear that they are not following Jesus, but going
contrary to His precept and example.


(g) TEMPERANCE vs. PROHIBITION

There can be no possible doubt as to the position of Jesus on this
question.

At the outset of His prophetic career, He drew the line sharply between
Himself and John the Baptist in this matter.

John drank no wine and practiced fasting.

Jesus drank wine and condemned ceremonial fasting.

Each by word and example inculcated these different ideas on his
respective followers (Matt. XI:18, 19; Luke V:33).[62]

At the marriage in Cana, He furnishes wine for the guests when the
supply runs out (John II:1, 2). In His instructions to His apostles He
tells them to eat and _drink_ such things as are set before them (Luke
X:7). He uses wine in the celebration of the Last Supper, and promises
His apostles to drink with them of the "fruit of the vine" in heaven
(Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:18, 30).

When Mahomet appeared, he followed the example of John the Baptist, and
prohibited the drinking of wine. Since his time, on two points the line
has always been sharply drawn between the Gospel of Jesus and that of
Mahomet. The orthodox Christian could eat pork and drink wine, while the
orthodox Mohammedan could do neither.

The majority of professed Christians have presumably supported the
recent prohibition legislation in the United States. In so doing, they
are not following Jesus, but going directly contrary to His precept and
example. They are in effect saying that, on this point, Mahomet knew
better than Jesus what was for the best good of the human race.


(h) SACRIFICE vs. MERCY

Under the term "sacrifice," Jesus included all ceremonial religious
worship, and tried constantly to impress on His followers that this was
not the offering pleasing to God, but, rather, deeds of mercy (Matt.
IX:13; XXIII:23).

Realizing how strong is the tendency in human nature to impute to itself
righteousness on account of its "tithes of mint and anise and cummin,"
He carried His condemnation of ceremonies into the smallest details.
This is well illustrated by His enjoining His apostles not to wash
before eating (Matt. XV:1, 2 and 20; Luke XI:37, 38). As He states, His
objection was not to washing in itself, but because the Pharisees had
made a religious ceremony of it.

Simplicity is the marked characteristic of all Jesus' acts of devotion.
While it was His custom to preach in the synagogue on the Sabbath day,
yet, so far as appears in the four Gospels, Matthew's Sermon on the
Mount, Luke's Sermon on the Plain, the Lord's Prayer, and most of Jesus'
important discourses were delivered, not in the synagogue and on the
Sabbath day, but wherever time and place suited His convenience--from a
ship, on a mountain, on a plain, in His own house, etc. (Matt. V:1; X:1;
XII:2; XVIII:1; XXIII:1; XXIV:3; Mark IV:1; X:1; Luke V:3; VI:17; X:1;
XI:1; XII:1; John III:2; IX:40; XII:22, 23; XIV; XV; XVI; XVII).

To demonstrate how far modern Christianity has traveled from the ideas
of Jesus, it is only necessary to attend some ceremonial service in an
Episcopalian or Catholic Cathedral, or some protracted prayer meeting of
one of the Evangelical denominations.

Out of the fruitful field of Pauline theology, there sprang, even within
a few centuries after the Crucifixion, a plentiful crop of the direst
evils that have ever afflicted mankind--creeds and definitions of
belief. Fortunately, disputatious theologians are now limited to the
weapons of pen and ink, but in the Middle Ages oceans of blood were
spilt over these religious quarrels.

If we could suppose the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the
Thirty-nine Articles, or the Augsburg Confession to be submitted to
Jesus for His approval, it is easy to imagine the substance of His
answer: "I don't know what all this stuff means. I do not understand
your terms--pre-destination, fore-ordination, trans-substantiation,
infant damnation, etc. There is nothing here that I ever preached. I
have given you a simple standard of righteousness, which every one can
understand and follow, viz., right living. Have you forgotten my saying,
that 'all the law and the prophets were contained in the two
commandments to 'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,' and to 'love
thy neighbor as thyself' (Matt. XXII:37-40). These creeds of yours may
be true, or partly true, or wholly false. But the important fact for
you to remember is, that they are unnecessary to salvation--are
non-essentials. If this sort of logomachy pleases you as an intellectual
exercise, well and good, if it goes no further. But, beware that, in
following this _ignis fatuus_, you do not neglect the only one main
essential to God's favor--'to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk
humbly with thy God.'"


CONCLUSION

The Great War has brought about a wondrous upheaval in the society of
the world. Nearly every phase of mental and physical activity in man is
in a process of transformation. Government, religion, labor, pleasure,
business, finance, international relations--all are on a shifting basis,
seeking readjustment to new ideas and new conditions. To cling to
worn-out conceptions of life--to worn-out ideas and phrases is mere
folly. These new problems can only be met and settled with a "_tabula
rasa_." We must wipe out the old prejudices, the old accepted canons,
and above all the old hypocrisies and cant.

If Christianity is to be a living, efficient force in the coming
readjustment, it must cleanse itself of some of these old barnacles of
hypocrisy now clinging to it. Not that hypocrisy will be less prevalent
under the new regime than under the old. Human nature will remain
essentially the same, but it will demand new forms of hypocrisy. The
specious, shallow reasoning of the charlatan, the fulsome adulation and
extravagant promises of the demagogue, and other forms of humbuggery
will still attract their thousands. Patient merit will still suffer its
many spurns from the unworthy. But the followers of Jesus, if they will
throw overboard their useless ecclesiastical and theological lumber, and
return to the simple teachings and example of the Great Teacher, are
sure to win.

The first and most important matter is to get rid of the hypocrisy of
war. War is the most direful menace to the happiness and prosperity of
mankind and, notwithstanding the bitter lessons of the Great War, little
progress has been made towards averting it in the future.

And no permanent progress in that direction will be made until the
Christian peoples of the world reject, root and branch, such views of
national wars as are expressed by the late President Roosevelt in the
quotations from his works already given (see (a) War, _supra_). The
underlying principle of this war philosophy is the same as that of the
modern Germans, Treitschke, Nietzsche and Bernhardi, except that they
express themselves with more brutal frankness. It was preached long ago
by Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Eichte, Hegel and others. It is
in substance that the State, although all its component units are
sincere followers of Jesus, should not be governed by any moral laws in
its dealings with other States. The State can do no wrong. It should
pursue its ends with utter, callous selfishness, and its only law is
that might makes right.

President Roosevelt has been quoted, because, in his views, he
unquestionably voiced the sentiments of the great majority of past and
present Americans. If this be true, should we not look for the beam in
our own eye, before we criticize Germany for starting the Great War? She
was simply applying the law that might makes right, except that she
underestimated the might of the enemies she was arraying against
herself. If she had been successful (as she probably would have been
except for the unexpected valor and self-sacrifice of the Belgians),
would she have been any worse sinner (barring some barbarous details of
her warfare) than the United States with its condonation and approval of
the Mexican and Spanish wars? Both of these were wars of aggression
against weaker nations, and the Mexican war, at least, is admitted on
all hands to have been morally unjustifiable, even by such stalwart
Americans as President Roosevelt. More than a hundred years ago, a
distinguished admiral of the United States Navy is reported to have
said: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she
always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." Now, this is a
high-sounding phrase and is a great refuge for Jingo politicians when
they have precipitated the country into an unrighteous war. But before
the bar of Jesus it is the veriest clap-trap. The sincere follower of
Jesus should insist that we be sure we are right in the first instance,
and, if it is discovered that we have been misled into a by-way of wrong
and injustice, that we get back at once to the straight and narrow way
of right and justice.

Our churches must denounce these Rooseveltian doctrines early and late,
as a perversion of Jesus' laws. They must insist that opposition to wars
becomes a service of the heart and not of the lip. They must mould us
into a nation of sincere "conscientious objectors," condemning all wars
as un-Christian, judging every aggressive war as _prima facie_
unjustifiable, and insisting that the advocates of any war prove the
justness of their cause beyond a reasonable doubt. Let our politicians
and leaders understand that if they plunge us into an unjust war, they
are to be punished, and not rewarded by the Presidency, as was Roosevelt
after the Spanish war, and Taylor after the Mexican war. How many of our
wars would have lacked advocates, if they had been obliged to plead
their cause under the principles of the Sermon on the Mount?

As long as the people of the United States are animated by, and their
conduct based on, the war philosophy of Roosevelt, it is hard to see how
any League of Nations could be anything but a farce--a mere "scrap of
paper." On the other hand, if all the Christian nations were sincere,
ardent "conscientious objectors," wars would be avoided without the need
of any League of Nations. If the Christian people of Germany had been
"conscientious objectors" in this sense, there would not have been a
Great War. But unfortunately they were of a different faith, and
according to German writers still cling to that faith, after all their
bitter experiences. (Germany since the Revolution. Yale Review, Jan.,
1921). Nor may we flatter ourselves that we are free from the same
views. For instance, there is apparently, at the present time (as there
was before the Spanish war) a Jingo junto of politicians and newspapers
who seize every opportunity to stir up prejudice and hostility against
Japan, although it has always acted towards us as a peace-loving,
neighborly nation. If it were as vulnerable to our attack as Mexico or
Spain, these Hotspurs might quite likely drag us into a war, but the
uncertainty of the contest in this case must give them pause.

Another field for church action is in working towards making Sunday like
the Sabbath of Jesus' time--a day of joyous relaxation and recreation,
but always remembering that deeds of mercy and the promotion of the
happiness of others, are to feature the day, as the offering acceptable
to God. One of the marked features of the time is the growing spirit of
unrest and discontent among the mass of the people. This spirit of
unrest manifests itself, in part, by an increasing appetite for
amusement. While this outlet for people's uneasiness may perhaps not be
of the highest, it is much preferable to others, to which their
discontent might turn. The churches should recognize this present need
of man, realize the truth of Jesus saying that the Sabbath was made for
man, oppose all new Sunday Blue Laws, and seek the repeal of those now
existing. Instead of putting the ban of the church on all Sunday
amusements, it should encourage such harmless recreations as it can well
sanction under the example of Jesus. There should be meetings in the
churches, as in the synagogue in Jesus' time, but as an incident, and
not the chief end, of the day.

In the matter of temperance vs. prohibition, a great Christian nation
has, for the first time in history, recently inaugurated the experiment
of a general prohibition law. What the results of this policy may be,
remains an uncertain question for the future to decide. Certain it is
that the Anglo-Saxon race has reached its present stage of progress and
civilization under a regime of practically unrestricted use of alcoholic
drinks. Of the eminent names in its history--in government, war,
literature, arts, sciences, industrial work and invention--the
percentage of those who all their lives have been consistent abstainers
from liquor must be exceedingly small. The prohibitionist will say that
all this progress has been made in spite of the evils of drink. But that
can only be proved by generations of experience under prohibition laws.
The other hypothesis is, _prima facie_, equally tenable, that this
progress has been due in part to the stimulus which the temperate use of
liquor undoubtedly does, at least temporarily, give to the physical and
mental activity of man. The thirteen centuries of experience of the
followers of Mahomet demonstrate that prohibition does not of itself
produce great men, or general virtue, progress or prosperity.

Theoretically the success of prohibition is handicapped by the fact that
it is opposed to the evolutionary processes of nature. The basic idea of
prohibition is to improve man by removing the cause of evil. For no one
can deny that excess of drinking is an evil, just as is excess of
eating, of fasting, of prayer, or any other form of human activity. Even
excess of charity may be an evil, if it results in impoverishing one's
family. But nature works on the contrary idea. It develops its highest
types by exposing them to evil, and teaching them to conquer it. Take
the matter of climate, for instance. _A priori_ one might have reasoned
that a mild, equable climate, like that of the South Sea Islands, where
the means of subsistence are easily obtained, would be the best for the
human race. It could plausibly be argued that man would have more time
and energy for his intellectual development if he were not absorbed in a
continuous, laborious struggle for his physical existence. But
experience has shown that just this contest with the extremes of heat
and cold--this continual battle for subsistence under uncongenial
conditions--has produced not only the most efficient workers in material
progress, but also the highest types of intellectual development.
Whether the prohibition theory of wrapping men in lamb's wool, instead
of putting them out to fight the battle of life, will not produce more
evil than good, is at least uncertain. It may be that, after some time
of experimenting, men may come back to the idea that Jesus was right in
thinking that temperance is better for the human race than prohibition.

Furthermore, prohibition, besides being opposed both to the laws of
Jesus and the laws of nature, has the essential weakness, as a remedy
for intemperance, that it attacks the means or rather one of the means,
of intemperance, and not the cause--the _causa efficiens_, as the
logicians would say. The Anglo-Saxons have for centuries been
meat-eaters and liquor-drinkers. What end they would have attained on a
diet of vegetables and cold water, we can only guess, but all science is
wrong if it would not have been some end quite different. Now, this
appetite for stimulants--the growth of centuries--is not to be
eradicated by prohibiting the use of alcoholic drinks, any more than the
appetite for fornication can be eradicated by the suppression of houses
of prostitution. In spite of all the prohibition laws in the world, the
appetite for stimulants will continue to exist in the Anglo-Saxon race,
and will seek its gratification in one way, if not in another. Whether
these substitutes may not be worse in the end than alcohol, remains to
be seen. Suppose, for instance, that accustomed liquor-drinkers should
now substitute, as their stimulant, large quantities of strong tea or
coffee, or, possibly, some concentrated product of one or the other of
those plants. Probably nine-tenths of our medical authorities would
agree that the change would be, generally speaking, undoubtedly for the
worse.

It is to be observed that never in the United States has there been
made any general systematic effort towards temperance, such as is now
being made towards prohibition. No greater hypocrisy has ever been
worked off on the American people than that under the name of
"Temperance." Societies have labeled themselves with that name, orators
and prominent leaders have paraded under that name, when, in
fact, it was a mere subterfuge, and the bearers of it were really
prohibitionists. Probably no one who has ever worked for real temperance
measures in any of our large cities but would testify that his work has
been seriously hampered by the entire lack of interest, if not by the
actual hostility, of these so-called temperance reformers and societies.
In fact, many of them would make no scruple in openly avowing that they
were opposed to any practical temperance measure, because it would
retard the coming prohibition. With the hearty support of the
prohibitionists, there is no reason today why scientific temperance
measures should not be put in force throughout the United States, that
would do away with at least seventy-five per cent of the evils of
drunkenness.

Our present Federal prohibition law is still on trial. It never would
have been enacted unless we had been precipitated into the Great War. It
has never been submitted to a plebiscite of the people. In one respect,
it has done much evil in increasing the unrest and discontent of a large
part of our population, who regard malt liquors as comparatively
innocuous, and as necessary to their comfort and health, and who regard
the deprivation of them as an invasion of their personal liberty. When
Rome was threatened, as we are now, by a rising tide of unrest and
discontent, the rulers of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food
and amusement. Many of the thinkers of today neglect this sage, old
maxim in depriving the people of their beer, in urging more stringent
Sunday Blue Laws, and, generally, in restricting or prohibiting popular
amusements, on one pretext or the other. In reading some of the proposed
restrictions on minors, one sometimes wonders how it is supposed that
stalwart, young lads from sixteen to twenty-one are to spend their
evenings. They most assuredly will not spend them at home reading the
Bible.

In the future consideration of temperance vs. prohibition, it will be
well for the followers of Jesus to weigh maturely His position on the
question. His precept and example are not lightly to be disregarded,
especially where, as here, they harmonize with the laws of nature,
instead of, as in the case of war, being opposed to them. If all
hypocrisy were eliminated, and the non-compromisers and sacro-sancts
kept out of the discussion, there is no reason why the opposing forces
of temperance and prohibition could not arrive at a compromise, which
would reduce the evil of drunkenness to a minimum, and, at the same
time, not rob life of the joy and good cheer that comes from a temperate
enjoyment of the "fruit of the vine." If it is to be a part of the
heavenly life (Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:30), let it be also
a part of the earthly life.

In the matters of prayer, fasting and ceremonial worship, the churches
must make radical changes in their practice, if they are to win back
their influence over the masses of the people--an influence which, it is
generally admitted, has been on the wane during the past few decades.
The contrast is altogether too glaring between the simple form of
worship, practiced and preached by Jesus, and that of most of our modern
religious denominations. The luxury of modern living is a favorite
subject of invective by essayists and philosophical writers. But it is
little wonder that the layman runs to this extreme, when he has before
him the example set by many of the successors of Jesus' apostles--popes,
bishops, cardinals, ministers of wealthy parishes, etc. And, in saying
this, the fact is not overlooked that many ministers of the Gospel are
worthy, self-denying, conscientious followers of Jesus in these matters,
but the exceptions are too numerous. The conduct of a class is usually
judged by that of its most prominent representatives.

As to creeds, theological disputes and sectarian differences, the common
people are more and more acting on the lines of Pope's couplet:

    "_For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight;
    His can't be wrong, whose life is in the right.
    In faith and hope the world will disagree;
    But all mankind's concern is charity._"




     _After the death of Mr. Atwater it developed that he had instructed
     the Trust Company having his affairs in charge to make money gifts
     to about one hundred of his friends._

     _A few of those so remembered have published the accompanying book
     for distribution among Mr. Atwater's intimate acquaintances. The
     text is that of a pamphlet which he published just before his
     death._

     _Inside this leaflet are reproduced copies of a letter to the Trust
     Company regarding the gifts and a memorandum, found in his desk, as
     to the disposition of his remains._




 Minneapolis, Minn.
 Sept. 1/15

 Minneapolis Trust Company,
 115 South Fifth Street,
 City.

Dear Sirs:--

In distributing the property which will come to you under my will, I
wish you to exercise a reasonable discretion, since conditions may be
quite different at the time of my death from what they are now. I very
likely have overlooked some of my old friends who should be remembered,
and in such case I should wish you to make the matter right as though
they were included in my list.

In case I should die after sickness of some duration, the people who
have taken care of me in this sickness should be also remembered.

In case there should be any deficiency of property to fill these
bequests, I should prefer that the deficiency should be taken out of the
larger amounts to friends who do not really need the money, rather then
to reduce all of the bequests pro rata. Under present conditions there
should be a surplus of several thousand dollars. This you might hold for
some time and if any of my friends came to actual want, you could use it
for their benefit or, if not used for that purpose, you could give it to
some hospital or asylum.

If you deem it advisable, you may make explanation that the varying
amounts of these legacies are not to be taken as indicating the degree
of my regard for recipients, since I have considered to a considerable
extent the financial condition of my friends. To some of them any amount
of money I could leave would be of no account pecuniarily, while in case
of others it might be of some real help; I have also given my girl
friends largely the advantage in amounts.

I will keep a duplicate of this list, which will be among my papers, and
may make changes in it from time to time, which will be of the same
effect as though communicated to you.

 Yours very truly,

 John B. Atwater.




MEMORANDUM


I wish my remains to be cremated as quietly as possible, and do not care
to have a minister hold any services. While I believe in God the
Infinite not ourselves which is eternal I do not believe in any of the
man-made Gods and Creeds which now exist and which in my opinion have
entirely perverted the simple gospel taught by Christ. As I have no near
relatives to be pained by the absence of conventional ceremonies, I
might as well be consistent to the end. I have no particular use for
flowers at a funeral, and would prefer, if my friends feel it necessary
to express their regret in a tangible form, that they would send checks
to some Hospital or Asylum in my memory for the amount they would
otherwise spend on flowers.




FOOTNOTES:


[1] Renan says that "the family of David had, as it seems, been long
extinct" before Joseph's birth. Life of Jesus, Chap. XV.

[2] The first verse of Luke's Gospel says that "many" had written about
Jesus' life before him. If, as seems probable, he had Matthew's
narrative before him when he wrote his Gospel, it is an interesting
query why he rejected in his line of ancestry Solomon--the most
"glorious" of the Jewish rulers--in favor of the obscure and
comparatively unknown Nathan.

[3] It is somewhat curious that Matthew and Luke, who are the only two
evangelists to attribute a divine ancestry to Jesus (see heading
"Conception"), are the only two to give a genealogy of Joseph. From
their point of view, it was entirely immaterial whether Joseph was a
descendant of David or not. An attempt to trace Mary's lineage back to
David would have had some materiality.

On the other hand, it would seem that Mark and John, who ignore the
paternity of the Holy Ghost, would have deemed it of high importance to
establish, if possible, one of these genealogies. All Jewry at this time
was teeming with expectation of the coming of a Messiah, and their
prophets had marked Him out as one of the lineage of David (Psalms
CXXXII:2; Jer. XXIII:4; John VII:42). No stronger argument could have
been found to win the favor of the Jews to Jesus than the linking of His
name with David.

In Cadman's "Harmony of the Gospels," page 39, the author makes an
ingenious attempt to "harmonize" these two lines of ancestry--the
super-natural and the Davidian. This he does by making Luke's genealogy
one of Mary, instead of Joseph. By this means the super-natural
fatherhood of Jesus is saved and, at the same time He can claim, through
His mother, a descent from David.

The main trouble with this theory is that Cadman is obliged to make Heli
the father of Mary, when Luke expressly says that Heli was the father of
Joseph (Luke III:23). At another place, Luke speaks of _Joseph,_ not
_Mary_, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).

[4] There was no God--the Holy Ghost--known to the Jews, and Joseph
could not have understood the meaning of the term without some
explanation.

[5] It is to be noted that Matthew does not explain why the angel
changed the name in the prophecy--Immanuel--to that of Jesus.

[6] Apparently the Angel must have told Mary His name.

[7] Cadman, in the work already referred to, page 37, "harmonizes" these
two variant accounts of the angelic announcements by giving Matthew's
version in his text, and simply referring to Luke's account in a note.

[8] From Luke's narrative it does not appear that Joseph had any doubts
as to Jesus being his child, or, if he did, how these doubts were
removed.

[9] The story of the miraculous conception of Jesus would be thrown out
of any impartial court upon the evidence of the four Gospels alone.

(a) The two narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on
several important details, as is shown above. This discredits each of
them as a reliable, accurate authority on this point.

(b) This story is entirely omitted from the narratives of our two
first-hand authorities--Mark and John.

Now, it is unthinkable that the authors of these two Gospels, if they
knew of this story and believed it to be true, would not have recorded
so important a fact in the life of Jesus.

Consequently, they either did not know of the story or, knowing it, did
not believe it to be true.

Either hypothesis is equally fatal to the credit of the story.

If they, writing shortly after Jesus' death and, presumably,
investigating all sources of information about His prophetic
career--probably personally interviewing those persons then living who
had seen, heard and known Jesus most intimately--had heard nothing of
this story, then it must have been such an obscure legend, buried in the
inner consciousness of so few people, as to be unworthy of serious
consideration as a fact of history.

If, on the other hand, these writers knew of the story, but, after
investigation of the abundant sources of information at their command,
rejected it as untrue, what warrant have subsequent historians, not
possessing their special means of information, to claim that their
decision was wrong?

(c) The story of Jesus' supernatural paternity is most effectually
discredited by the fact that no such claim on His behalf was advanced
by, nor was the story known to, those nearest to Him during His
lifetime.

His nearest friends and neighbors, who had been in daily intercourse
with Him at Nazareth for thirty years, had no suspicion of such a claim
being made on His behalf, even some time after He had begun his
preaching.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His
brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. XIII:55; Mark
VI:3.) (See also Matt. XII:47.)

Still later, the multitudes who came to hear Him knew nothing of such a
claim.

"Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"
(John VI:42).

Luke himself says that Jesus "was supposed" to be the son of Joseph
(Luke III:23).

There is, in fact, no evidence in the four Gospels to show that, during
Jesus' lifetime, there was, at any time or place or by any person, a
public claim made that He was not as much the son of Joseph, in the
natural course of events, as He was the son of Mary.

(d) _Jesus in His lifetime never denied the paternity of Joseph._

On one occasion, in the synagogue at Nazareth, when He had been
preaching and the people "wondered" at His "gracious words," "they said,
Is not this Joseph's son?" And He said unto them, among other things,
"No prophet is accepted in his own country" (Luke IV:22, 23). That is,
the people were loath to accept Jesus' teachings because of His lowly
birth. But Jesus, instead of claiming a divine parentage, impliedly
affirms the fatherhood of Joseph.

On another occasion He is challenged as to His paternity, and does not
deny that He is the son of Joseph (John VI:42).

If He had believed that the Holy Ghost was His father, then these two
utterances would have been a _suppressio veri_--the equivalent of a
falsehood--of which we cannot think Him guilty.

While Jesus never applies to Himself the title of "Son of David," yet
His claim to this lineage must have been widely circulated, since He is
given this title not only by the Jews (Matt. IX:27; XII:23; XX:30;
XXI:9, 15; Mark X:47; XI:10; Luke I:32; XVIII:38), but also by the
Gentiles (Matt. XV:22). His silence and failure to object, when so
addressed, certainly constitutes a tacit approval of this description of
Himself. But He could only be a descendant of David by reason of the
fact that Joseph was His father. Undoubtedly Matthew and Luke inserted
in their narratives these two genealogies of Joseph to prove a direct
descent of Jesus from David through the paternity of Joseph. The Cadman
theory of tracing a descent from David through Mary was not known to the
evangelists (Matt. I:16; Luke II:4).

In His meetings with his family, while He seems rather cool and
indifferent to them, there is no intimation that His relationship to
them is not the ordinary one of son and brother (Matt. XII:47; Mark
III:31; Luke VIII:19, 20; XI:28; John II:1, 12).

Jesus never refers to the Holy Ghost as His father, and, on four
occasions only, calls Himself the "Son of God" (John III:16-18; V:20;
IX:35; XI:4). None of the events in connection with which the term is
used by John, are related in either of the three other Gospels. But this
term would convey to His hearers no other significance than that with
which they were familiar from the Old Testament, where it is applied to
beings inferior to God (Gen. VI:2; Job I:6; II:1; XXXVIII:7; Ps.
LXXXII:6; 2 Sam. VII:14). But this is very far from the attribute
ascribed to Jesus through the miraculous conception, of being the equal
of, or one with, God. Jesus Himself refers to others as being the
"children of God" (Luke XX:36; Matt. V:45), and He speaks constantly of
God being the "Father" of His hearers (Matt. V:16, 45; VI:1, 6, 14;
XVIII:14 _et passim_). Apparently He makes no distinction between this
"fatherhood," as related to others, and as related to Himself. For
instance, He tells Mary to go to His disciples and say unto them, "I
ascend unto my Father, and _your_ Father and to _my_ God and _your_ God"
(John XX:17).

Jesus' favorite appellation for Himself is "the Son of _Man_." He uses
this name constantly throughout the four Gospels, and uniformly, except
in the four instances cited from John. In speaking of the most solemn
and important events of His career, He prefers this name to "the Son of
God," or any other. "Of him, also, shall the _Son of Man_ be ashamed,
when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark
VIII:38; XIII:26; Luke IX:26). In passages like these, it seems
necessary to eliminate the words "of man," if they are to harmonize with
the theory of the paternity of the Holy Ghost. Again, on His trial, when
the high priest "adjures" Him: "Tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the
Son of God," Jesus follows His usual noncommittal answer, "Thou hast
said," with the statement: "Hereafter shall ye see the _Son of Man_
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven
(Matt. XXVI:64; Luke XXII:69; Mark XIV:62; John VIII:28; XII:23, 34,
35).

(e) Finally, to close all argument on this point, there are the many
express statements of Jesus to the effect that He was not the same as,
or the equal of, God (Matt. XIX:17; XX:23; Mark X:18, 40; Luke XVIII:19;
John XIV:28; XVII:3).

[10] Evidently Elisabeth never told John of this visit of Mary, since
John says of his first meeting with Jesus that "I knew Him not," until
he saw "the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon
Him" (John I:31-33; see also Matt. XI:3; Luke VII:19).

[11] Unfortunate as it may be to lose the beautiful story of the birth
at Bethlehem, with its poetic imagery of the manger, the visit of the
"wise men," and the greeting of the shepherds, the evidence of the four
Gospels proves its untruth even more strongly than the story of the
miraculous conception.

(a) The contradictory details appearing in the two narratives discredit
each as a reliable authority.

Matthew has Jesus born in a house, greeted by "wise men of the East,"
and going to Egypt immediately after His birth, and remaining there
until after Herod's death.

Luke has Him born in a manger, greeted by shepherds, remaining in
Bethlehem for several weeks, then going to Jerusalem, and from there
_returning_ "into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (Luke II:39). His
parents could not have been in Egypt, avoiding the wrath of Herod,
because "they went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover"
(Luke II:41).

Herod's massacre of the innocents is, of course, unknown to Luke,
because, according to him, no "flight of the holy family to Egypt" ever
took place. This massacre is not mentioned in the four Gospels, except
in this Chapter of Matthew, nor is it recorded by any profane historian
of that time, like Josephus. Even supposing that Herod--a Roman tetrarch
and not an independent despot--would have dared a wholesale slaughter of
Roman subjects without express authority from Augustus Cæsar, yet so
terrible an event would have left an indelible impression on the Jewish
people. If it had occurred, connected as it was with the birth of Jesus,
it is incredible that the other evangelists should have omitted all
mention of it, as well as Josephus, who records the other cruelties of
Herod.

Bethlehem was some six miles south of Jerusalem, and Nazareth some sixty
or seventy miles north of Jerusalem. Matthew does not explain why Joseph
and Mary should have been in Bethlehem at this time, especially in view
of her then approaching confinement. In fact, the inference from
Matthew's narrative would be, that they were residents of Bethlehem at
this time. But the unvarying testimony of all the Gospels, except in
this one passage, is that Galilee was the native country of both Joseph
and Mary, and that their home, after her marriage, was at Nazareth. Luke
states this explicitly (Luke I:26), and Matthew himself, in every other
passage but this, speaks of Jesus as coming from Nazareth, and asserts
that Galilee was "his own country" (Matt. XIII:54; XXI:11; XXVI:71).

Luke, who recognizes Nazareth as the native city of Joseph, explains his
presence in Bethlehem on the theory that he, being of the house of
David, came to Bethlehem to be enrolled under the census taken by
Quirinius, pursuant to a decree of Cæsar Augustus (Luke II:1). But the
authorities generally agree that this census did not extend to the
tetrarchies, like Judæa, and that it was taken at least ten years after
the birth of Jesus (Renan, Life of Jesus, Chap. II). Besides, it is
taxing one's credulity to the utmost to suppose that the Roman officers
would have allowed a citizen of Nazareth to enroll himself in an
insignificant village, more than sixty miles distant, on the ground that
some problematical ancestor had been anointed with oil in that place a
thousand years before (1 Sam. XVI:13).

As to the contradictory accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning Jesus'
movements immediately after His birth, Cadman in his "Harmony of the
Gospels" pp. 4, 45, 48, "harmonizes" them by printing each of them
without comment, as though both could be true.

(b) The silence of Mark and John as to the birth at Bethlehem is even
more significant than in the matter of the miraculous conception.

There were two points most essential for Jesus and His followers to
establish in order to convince the Jews that He was truly their expected
Messiah: (1) that He was of the "house of David"; (2) that He "came"
from Bethlehem.

The Old Testament prophecies were explicit on these two points (Jer.
XXIII:5; Micah V:2; Ps. CXXXII:11).

This was the general expectancy among the Jews at the time of Jesus'
birth (Matt. II:5, 6; XXII:42; Luke I:32).

"Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David,
and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John VII:42).

With such importance attaching to a birth at Bethlehem, the argument is
irresistible that Mark and John, in not mentioning it, either did not
know of the story, or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true. Either
hypothesis is equally fatal to the credibility of the story.

It is further to be noted that, while the claim of Jesus' paternity by
the Holy Ghost, if publicly asserted, might have stirred up some scandal
among the good people of Nazareth, it could not have been absolutely
disproved. But, at the time the Gospels were written, it was
comparatively easy to absolutely prove whether Jesus was born at
Nazareth or at Bethlehem, more than sixty miles distant.

(c) The claim was never publicly made that He was born at Bethlehem,
notwithstanding the great support which that fact, if true, would have
given to His cause. To His friends and neighbors of thirty years'
standing at Nazareth, and to the "multitudes" in general, He was known
only as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Mark VI:1-4; Matt. XXI:11; XXVI:71; Mark
XIV:67, 70; Luke IV:16, 22; XXII:59; XXIII:6; John VII:41, 42; XVIII:5,
7, 8; XX:19).

(d) Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever put forth this claim, even _when
the objection was made that He could not be the Messiah, because He came
from Nazareth_.

The evidence on this point is, of course, mostly negative, consisting in
an entire absence in the four Gospels of any reference to His birth at
Bethlehem, except the first account given in Matthew and Luke.
Thereafter it is as though it had never occurred, for anything that the
Gospels have to say about it.

But in two or three instances the question was directly raised.

Philip, one of the apostles, finds Nathaniel and says to him: "We have
found Him, of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write, _Jesus
of Nazareth, the son of Joseph_.

Nathaniel's reply is: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

The only answer which Philip makes is: "Come and see" (John I:45, 46).

On another occasion, Jesus' preaching so impressed His hearers that many
of them said: Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the
Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the
Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the
town of Bethlehem, where David was? (John VII:40, 41, 42).

In both these instances the obvious answer to the objection made would
have been, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, if that had been a fact.

Again, on the evening of His arrest, Jesus twice affirms that He is
"Jesus of Nazareth" (John XVIII:5, 8). It would seem that, in that
solemn moment of approaching death, Jesus would have asserted His
Messianic claim to a birth at Bethlehem, if it had been a fact. (See
also Mark XVI:6; Luke XXIII:6, 7; XXIV:19; John XIX:19).

[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and, when he told
them that He must be about His Father's business, "they understood not
the saying which He spoke unto them" (Luke II:50). Apparently their
knowledge of His miraculous conception, and all the predictions of
angels, wise men, shepherds, Simeon, Anna and Elisabeth had produced
little, if any, effect on their minds.

[13] It is an interesting query why all four evangelists give such full
and precise details of this ceremony. Neither John nor Jesus seems to
have attached much importance to it. Only a short time after it
occurred, John had forgotten it, for, while in prison (Matt. XI:2; Mark
VI:17), he sent some of his disciples to inquire of Jesus, "Art Thou He
that should come or do we look for another?" (Matt. XI:2-6; Luke
VII:19-23).

Jesus never mentions His baptism or His then recognition by John, as
giving credence to His claims, although He speaks of him and his mission
as His forerunner (Matt. XI:7-13; Luke VII:24-29). When He appeals to
John as a witness to the truth of His messianic claims, He does not
refer to this baptismal ceremony, but relies on John's statements to
messengers sent to Him (John V:32, 33; III:25-36).

Baptism, as it developed into a religious rite after Jesus' death--the
first step towards admission into the membership of a church--was
unknown to the Jews and to Jesus Himself (Kitto's Cyclopædia of Bib.
Lit., pp. 282-290).

John seems to have given it a temporary popularity, but its practice
among the Jews ceased with his death. Jesus showed as little interest in
it as in other rites and ceremonies. Only one of the Gospels mentions
baptism by Jesus' disciples, and that allusion is very indefinite (John
III:22; IV:1). But it is explicitly added "though Jesus Himself baptized
not" (John IV:2).

The strongest evidence on this point is Jesus' failure to enjoin the
practice of this rite on His followers. Three of the Gospels give quite
fully Jesus' instructions to the apostles and disciples on sending them
out in the world to preach, and not one word is said about baptism
(Matt. X; Mark VI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6).

Probably the evangelists felt the need (more than Jesus Himself) of
fortifying the latter's cause with the ægis of John's popularity. At
this time the Jews were filled with expectations of the coming of some
ruler (Elias, Christ, the Messiah, "he who shall come," etc.), who
should establish an earthly kingdom and give them victory over the
heathen. John's preaching appealed to this feeling and won to him great
numbers of adherents, who remained faithful to him even in prison (Matt.
III:5; XIV:5; Mark I:5; XI:32; Luke III:3). To identify Jesus with this
expectant one, of whom John preached, was to win at once to Jesus' cause
all of John's great following.

[14] It is to be noted that the Epistle of James is directed "to the
twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James I:1), and contains no
allusion whatever to the Gentiles. There is some dispute whether the
author of this epistle, who was bishop of Jerusalem for many years, was
the brother or cousin-german of Jesus, or the brother of John, "the
beloved disciple." There is no doubt, however, that he was an intimate
associate of Jesus during His life-time, and, presumably, a much more
accurate authority on His views than Paul or others who had never seen
Jesus or heard Him speak.

[15] There may be urged, against this view of Jesus' conception of His
mission, certain passages occurring in the different accounts of the
resurrection.

Matthew relates that, on the appearance of Jesus on a mountain in
_Galilee_ to the eleven apostles, where "some doubted" whether it were
He or not, Jesus said, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost" (Matt. XXVIII:19).

Mark relates that, on Jesus' appearance in _Jerusalem_ "unto the eleven
as they sat at meat," He said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the
Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark XVI:14, 15, 16).

Luke relates that, when Jesus appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven, He
told them that Christ was to suffer and rise the third day "that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among
all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke XXIV:47).

According to John, who is by many regarded the most reliable authority
on the events of Passion Week, and who describes the appearances of
Jesus both at Jerusalem and on the sea-shore in Galilee, Jesus said
nothing indicating any change in His views about preaching to the
Gentiles or the importance of baptism. On the contrary, He three times
says to Peter, "Feed my lambs" or "Feed my sheep" (John XXI:15, 16, 17).
But His "sheep" were "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," with whom
alone His mission lay (Matt. XV:24).

The glaring contradictions on this point between Matthew, Mark and Luke
make their evidence of little weight as against the clear and explicit
utterances of Jesus, which these same evangelists have recorded in the
earlier part of their Gospels. No two of them agree as to just what was
said, or when it was said. The use by Matthew of the later formula of
baptism--"in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"--which
apparently was never used by John the Baptist or Jesus' disciples, marks
his passage with the strongest suspicion.

The account of John is the only one consistent with the previous history
of Jesus, and it is more than probable that these passages from Matthew,
Mark and Luke were interpolated through the influence of Paul and his
followers.

[16] These solitary "retreats" for fasting, prayer and meditation to a
desert, wilderness or mountain are common occurrences in the lives of
religious teachers, prophets, saints, etc., of the Orient. They seem,
however, somewhat foreign to the character of Jesus (Luke VII:33, 34;
Matt. IX:14). This is the only formal fasting by Jesus mentioned in the
four Gospels. Several times it is related that He went up into a mount,
but He either did not go alone, or He spent only a short time,--a day or
a night.

In its location--a mountain--and its duration--forty days--this fast
follows the Old Testament precedents of Moses, on Mount Sinai (Exod.
XXXIV:28), and the prophet Elijah on Mount Horeb (I Kings XIX:8).

The rather theatrical adjunct of the devil and his temptations may fall
in the same category, as Matthew's massacre of the innocents and the
flight to Egypt. It gives opportunity, however, to bring in several
quotations from the Old Testament.

It must be remembered that, as Jesus preached only to the Jews, so the
Gospels (except possibly John), were written with the purpose of
convincing the Jews of the truth of Jesus' claims to be their Messiah.
The more their authors could connect Him with the sayings and
predictions of the Old Testament, the stronger their case. Hence, with
nearly every incident of Jesus' life, they cite some appropriate text of
the Old Testament, usually with the addition, "that it might be
fulfilled" or "as it was spoken by the prophet." In their zeal, it is
possible that, in some cases, an incident was found to fit a text,
rather than a text to fit an incident.

[17] Apparently, after Jesus left Nazareth, He became domiciled at
Capernaum (Mark II:1,15; Matt. IX:1).

[18] The four Gospels use the term "disciples" without much distinction,
as meaning either the apostles or the immediate, personal adherents of
Jesus for the time being.

[19] According to Mark this "feast" was in Jesus' house (Mark II:15; see
Matt. IX:10).

[20] This first discourse of Jesus stands unequaled in religious
writings for its clearness, simplicity and freedom from dogmatic
theology. To appreciate this, it is only necessary to cite some passages
from John's Gospel, which in comparison seem mystic, turgid and
ambiguous (John I:1-14; III:11-23; IV:50-59). There is scarcely a
sentence in the Sermon on the Mount susceptible of a double meaning, or
which a man of ordinary education cannot understand without the aid of a
learned exegesis. Yet how hard it is for the poor human followers of
Jesus to rise to its grand simplicity. Take, for instance, the subject
of fasting. It seems almost impossible for the Christian, of ancient or
modern times, to escape from the idea that, in mortifying the flesh, he
is doing something pleasing to God. John the Baptist both fasted and
enjoined fasting on his disciples. But Jesus neither fasted Himself, nor
enjoined fasting on His disciples (Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33;
Matt. III:4; Luke VII:33-34). With His sane view of life, free of all
fanaticism, He here, as always, inculcated temperance, condemning the
excess of asceticism, as much as the excess of overindulgence in eating
and drinking. While He does not prohibit fasting, He, in very plain
language checks the enthusiasm of His disciples to make the public
practice of fasting a mark of holiness.

"Moreover, when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites of a sad countenance,
for they disfigure their faces that they may appear to fast."

"But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head and wash thy face. That
thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in
secret" (Matt. VI:16, 17, 18).

This seems so clear that he who runs may read, and how the Roman
Catholic and Protestant Episcopal Churches make it square with their
public celebration of the Lenten fast, for instance, is hard to
understand. The "Fast Day" of New England would seem to come directly
under Jesus' condemnation.

[21] The Sermon on the Mount is probably composed of a number of
utterances at different times and places, which have been compiled and
put together in one discourse by the author of this Gospel.

[22] The promulgation of the Lord's Prayer is one of the most
significant events of Jesus' prophetic career. It illustrates both His
conception of God, and, as a consequence, His dislike of all ceremonial
worship.

The persistent weakness of every religion is to gradually forget, or
ignore, the spiritual unity of its supreme divinity with his human
followers. Whatever may have been the conception of the Deity by the
first great teacher, he soon comes to be regarded as a Being apart, like
the deified monarchs of ancient times, and as one who can be pleased, or
his wrath averted, by offerings and sacrifices. Practically all
religions having their beginning from barbarous races are founded on
sacrifices of animals, and usually of human beings. Even fairly well
civilized nations are not offended by legends describing human
sacrifices as being welcome to God. Examples of this are Abraham and
Isaac among the Jews, Iphigenia at Aulis among the Greeks, and Curtius
among the Romans. The ceremonies attending the rendition of these
offerings and sacrifices form often the most important part of the
religion, as is illustrated by the innumerable minute regulations
contained in the Mosaic books of the Old Testament.

But Jesus' conception of the Heavenly Father was essentially unique in
ever realizing the spiritual unity existing between the Father in heaven
and His Son Jesus and His other children on earth. Mark the difference
between Moses and Jesus in the matter of divine communications. Moses'
messages to the Jews are the results of direct and separate interviews
with the Almighty. He sees Him in the bush, or in the fire, and hears
Him from the clouds. But all this is unnecessary with Jesus. He and the
Father are one, and when He speaks, the Father speaks through Him. In
the beautiful words of Renan:

"Jesus had no visions; God did not speak to Him as to one outside of
Himself; God was in Him; He felt Himself with God, and He drew from His
heart all He said of His Father. He lived in the bosom of God by
constant communication with Him; he saw Him not, but he understood Him,
without need of the thunder and the burning bush of Moses, of the
revealing tempests of Job, of the oracle of the old Greek sages, of the
familiar genius of Socrates, or of the angel Gabriel of Mahomet. The
imagination and the hallucination of a St. Theresa, for example, are
useless here. The intoxication of the Soufi, proclaiming himself
identical with God, is also quite another thing. Jesus never once gave
utterance to the sacrilegious idea that He was God. He believed Himself
to be in direct communication with God; He believed Himself to be the
Son of God. The highest consciousness of God which has existed in the
bosom of humanity was that of Jesus."

With this conception of God, the idea of offerings or sacrifices to
please or placate Him becomes unthinkable. All He asks of His earthly
children is that they lead a God-like life.

Human nature, however, seems too weak to free itself from this
superstition of a Supreme Being to be pleased and His wrath averted.
But, as a nation becomes more civilized and spiritualized, the
manifestation of this superstition takes on different forms. The smoking
altars with their living victims disappear, and, in a measure, the
material offerings of shields and other weapons, chariots, gold and
silver vessels, jewels, etc. But their place is taken by rites and
ceremonies, of which prayer is always foremost. The pilgrimages, votive
offerings, masses, adoration of holy places, long prayers (especially
for victory over our enemies), elaborate church ceremonials, public
fastings, erection of expensive churches "to the glory of God," legacies
to "pious uses," etc., of the present day are the legitimate successors
of the "fat thighs" of the Greeks, and the Shew-bread of the
Jews--offerings to win the favor of a possibly offended or indifferent
Deity. We laugh at the "prayer-mill" of the Hindus, but the idea is the
same as procuring better treatment for your departed soul by purchasing
the performance of long "masses," if you have sufficient wealth.

At the time of Jesus the Jewish religion, as moulded by the Pharisees,
was dominated by the spirit of formalism. Attendance at the synagogue,
public prayers and fasting, observance of minute Sabbatical and other
regulations, were made of more importance than visiting the sick,
helping the poor, succoring the widow and orphan, etc. But the essence
of Jesus' religion was the living of an every-day godlike life, not the
adherence to certain creeds or dogmas, or the performance of rites and
ceremonies. In this formalism He recognized His most dangerous enemy. It
was a deep-rooted evil and hard to eradicate. One of its inherent
dangers is the easy cloak it lends to hypocrisy, and, like the poor, the
Pecksniffs we will always have with us.

Consequently we find Jesus early and late inveighing against the "long
prayers" of the Pharisees and heathen, and the bitterest term He can
apply to the Pharisees is "ye hypocrites." When He comes to instruct His
disciples on the subject of prayer, it is quite probable that He would
have interdicted it altogether, except for that sane temperance which
was so fundamental an element of His character. He recognized the
essential uselessness of prayer addressed to an all-good and all-wise
Father, since He knows what is best for each person without being
instructed, and from His great goodness will do what is best for each
person without being asked.

"For your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him"
(Matt. VI:8).

Jesus therefore carefully enjoins on His disciples that they shall not
pray in the synagogue, but "when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,
and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret"
(Matt. VI:5, 6). He also cautions them against long prayers--"use not
vain repetitions as the heathen do" (Matt. VI:7).

He then gives them a short, simple prayer, as a model for their efforts.

On this point of prayer Jesus makes Himself clear beyond any possibility
of misunderstanding, as in the case of fasting, and with apparently as
little effect on the modern Christian. The very term "prayer-meeting"
would be anathema to Jesus, and, if He were enticed into one of these
"meetings," He would assuredly think He was in the midst of His old
enemies, the Pharisees.

[23] The "Gadarene swine" were the subject of a once famous controversy
between Huxley and Gladstone (Huxley. Some Controverted Questions.
Chaps. XIV, XV). In the course of the wordy battle there occurs a
delicious bit of humor which is worth preserving. Huxley starts out by
saying that, for himself, he does not believe the miracle ever occurred,
and then adds that he should consider that "the wanton destruction of
other people's property is a misdemeanor of evil example." Gladstone
comments on this that, after eighteen centuries of worship of Jesus, "it
has been reserved to a scientific inquirer to discover that He was not
better than a law-breaker and an evil-doer." Huxley objects to this
accusation, because, as he expressly said he did not believe Jesus ever
sent any devils into any swine, he can hardly be guilty of charging
Jesus with this evil-doing. In his following article Gladstone states
Huxley's position, does not withdraw his accusation, but, in a manner of
apology, says: "The difference, _from his point of view_, is probably
material, and I therefore regret that I overlooked it."

[24] This miracle occurs in Luke before the healing of Jairus' daughter
(Luke VIII:41).

[25] The account of Luke's miracle is so vague as to be very
unsatisfactory. The dead man is unnamed and unknown, neither his
dwelling nor any of his relatives are identified, no one solicits Jesus
to perform the miracle, but the bier is met casually on the street or
country road, and none of the witnesses are named, as in the case of
Jairus' daughter. The narrator of such an unprecedented event, as the
raising of one from the dead, ought at least to furnish some means of
identifying the resurrected person. It is small wonder that Matthew,
Mark and John know nothing of this miracle.

A "doubting Thomas" might explain all three of these resurrection
miracles on the hypothesis of unexpert diagnosis of death, a trance, a
cataleptic fit, or other form of suspended animation. This would not be
possible in the case of Lazarus, if he had been buried in the ground
without the provision of some means of respiration. But he was laid in a
cave covered only by a stone, so that ample means of respiration are not
excluded.

But in the case of Lazarus, the most unexplainable matter is the silence
of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the subject of this miracle. Lazarus and
his two sisters were well known to Jesus and His disciples, and the
sisters are mentioned by all three of the evangelists. Shortly after the
miracle, Jesus comes to Bethany and "there they made Him a supper" (John
XII:2), and Lazarus sat at the table and Martha served. "Then took Mary
a pound of ointment of spikenard very costly and anointed the feet of
Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair" (John XII:3). The disciples were
apparently present, because Judas Iscariot objects to the waste of the
ointment (John XII:4, 5, 6). Both Matthew and Mark relate this event as
occurring in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, except that the
ointment is poured over Jesus' head, and neither the name of Mary or of
Judas Iscariot is mentioned (Matt. XXVI:6-13; Mark XIV:3-9). Luke speaks
of both Martha and Mary on the occasion when Jesus rebukes Martha for
being "troubled about many things" (Luke X:38). The raising of Lazarus
from the dead was not kept secret but was noised abroad, and was known
to many of the Jews in Jerusalem and to the chief priests (John XI:45,
46; XII:9, 10, 11, 17, 18).

Considering the notoriety of this miracle, the intimacy existing between
Lazarus' family and Jesus and His disciples, the relation by all the
evangelists of other incidents in Jesus' life in which Martha and Mary
appear, it is hard to understand why Matthew, Mark and Luke have not a
word to say of this, the most marvelous of all of Jesus' deeds.

[26] Bethsaida is on the same (west) side of the sea of Galilee as
Capernaum, and but a short distance from it, but this desert place was
apparently across the sea, near the land of the Gergesenes (John VI:1,
17; Matt. XIV:22; Mark VI:32). Some claim that there was another
Bethsaida on the east side of the sea of Galilee.

[27] It may seem strange that these numerous miracles had so little
effect in winning permanent adherents to Jesus' cause. The Jews at this
time were, from all accounts, in a state of religious fermentation,
expecting the immediate coming of a Messiah, looking for the signs and
portents of that coming, ready and willing to welcome any miraculous
happenings as proof that their hopes were about to be realized. Yet John
the Baptist, who did no miracles (John X:41), had apparently at the time
of his death a stronger following than Jesus at the time of His death.
(Compare Matt. XIV:5; Mark XI:32; Luke XX:6, with Matt. XIII:57;
XXVII:22; John VII:1; VIII:59; X:39; XI:53.)

The earlier miracles attracted large crowds, but the evidence is
abundant that, later, the miracles lost their effect, and in some cases,
even aroused animosity. Thus Matthew says that Jesus, in the beginning
of His prophetic career, "went about all Galilee," teaching and
preaching and "healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease
among the people." "And there followed Him great multitudes of people
from Galilee and from Decapolis and from Jerusalem and from Judæa and
from beyond Jordan" (Matt. IV:23, 24, 25. See Mark III:7, 8). But, in
Chap. XIII:53-58, he relates how Jesus, coming "into His own country" at
a later date and preaching there, the people "were offended in Him."
"But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his
own country and in his own house. And He did not many mighty works there
_because of their unbelief_." Mark says, "And He could there do no
mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed
them. And He marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark VI:5, 6).

Luke tells how, after He had preached in the synagogue in His home town
of Nazareth, "all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things,
were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city, and
led Him unto the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that
they might cast Him down headlong (Luke IV:28, 29).

Immediately after Jesus had healed the man, or two men, in the country
of the Gergesenes, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the "whole city,"
or the "whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about,"
besought Him to depart out of their coasts (Matt. VIII:34; Mark V:17;
Luke VIII:37).

After Jesus had preached in Jerusalem and performed at least one miracle
there (John V:5-9), the people were so incensed against Him that "He
would not walk in Jewry (Judæa), because the Jews sought to kill Him"
(John VII:1).

Later He went secretly into Judæa on the occasion of the feast of the
tabernacles (John VII:2, 10), and the people took "up stones to cast at
Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the
midst of them and so passed by" (John VIII:59). Again, when He had
restored sight to a blind man, they reviled this man and "cast him out"
(John IX:7, 34).

Again, when Jesus was at Jerusalem at the feast of the dedication (John
X:22), "the Jews took up stones again to stone Him." "Therefore they
sought again to take Him; but He escaped out of their hands" (John X:31,
39).

As regards the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the Jews, instead of
being favorably affected by that stupendous miracle, were apparently
incensed by it. They plotted to put both Lazarus and Jesus to death
(John XII:10), and "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the
Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city
called Ephraim" (John XI:54).

Finally, Jesus Himself bears witness both to His belief that miracles
were proof of His messianic claims, and that His miracles had failed to
give the support to His cause which He had expected. In one of His most
bitter utterances, He denounces the cities of Galilee, because they
would not believe in Him notwithstanding the many "mighty works" which
He had performed in their midst.

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin. Woe unto thee, Bethsaida."

"But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at
the day of judgment than for you."

"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought
down to hell."

"But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon
at the day of judgment, than for you" (Matt. XI:20-24; Luke X:13-15).

In more temperate language He bewails the coldness and hostility of
Jerusalem.

"How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?" (Matt.
XXIII:37; Luke XIII:34. See also Luke XIX:41, 42; Luke XI:31, 32).

The reason why Jesus' miracles produced no lasting effect on the Jews
has already been indicated. They expected their Messiah to show them
miracles as proof of his claims. But this Messiah must be one of their
own creation preaching the doctrines which they wished him to preach.
All the miracles in the world would not have convinced them that Jesus
was the true Messiah, so long as He offered them only a heavenly
kingdom. On the other hand, if He had promised them an earthly kingdom,
they would have acclaimed these same miracles which He did, as
indubitable proofs of His Messiahship. In this respect they differ not
at all from many modern professed followers of Jesus. They follow such
parts of His teaching as happen to suit their own ideas or prejudices,
and calmly ignore other parts, equally explicit and binding, which do
not fit in with their scheme of life. (See Hypocrisy or Truth, _infra_.)

The miracles and, even more, the apparent faith of Jesus in their
evidentiary value, form serious stumbling blocks in the way of those who
revere Jesus as the greatest "Son of Man"--unequaled in the simplicity
and unselfishness of His character and in the sublimity of His
teaching--but free from the tawdry tinsel of supernaturalism, which is
the usual stock-in-trade of leaders of religious sects. Mohammedanism
seems to be the only great religion which has resisted the temptation to
ascribe to its founder, either divine parentage or the power to perform
supernatural acts.

The attribution to Jesus of the Holy Ghost as His father need cause no
difficulty, by reason of the facts set out under sub-head "Conception,"
_supra_.

But as regards the miracles, it is true that few of them have much
scientific value as evidence of the intervention of supernatural powers
in their occurrence. For instance, Matthew records nineteen specific
miracles, of which only one is attested to by all the three other
evangelists, five are attested to by one beside himself, twelve by two,
and one by himself alone. Of the nineteen, five are events--stilling the
tempest--walking on the waters, two feeding the multitude, and one the
blasting of the unfortunate fig tree, which did not bear fruit out of
season. Of the remaining fourteen, one is a lunatic, one has a withered
hand, one is dumb, one is a leper, two have palsy, three are blind, one
has fever, one an issue of blood, two are possessed of devils, and the
ailment of Jairus' daughter is not specified. Without examining each in
detail, it may be said generally that these accounts are very indefinite
as to exact times and places, names of persons cured, or by friends or
relatives, and other details, by which the story might be verified. From
the insufficient data furnished, it would, for instance, have been
almost impossible for a person, starting to investigate these miracles
immediately after Jesus' death to have asserted that any particular
miracle did not occur, although he could not find a single witness to
any of them. Even the names of the disciples present are given only in a
few instances. It is also to be regretted that practically all of the
personal cures, as is the case with more modern miracle workers, fall
within that class of afflictions where ignorance, suggestion,
simulation, conscious or unconscious, etc., can so easily confuse the
result. If some of these latter-day healers would only go to an old
soldiers' home and supply some missing arms and legs, the "doubting
Thomases" would be more ready to concede their possession of
supernatural powers.

But, notwithstanding all this, the four Gospels are so permeated with
these miraculous doings that it would be almost denying them any
credibility at all, to claim that Jesus and His apostles did not believe
that He performed miracles, and that these miracles were proof of His
claim to the Messiahship. It can only be said that Jesus, great as He
was, could not entirely escape the influence of the times in which He
lived.

[28] Here again Jesus makes clear His antipathy to churchly ceremonies
and pharisaical formalism. No ceremony marks the joining of His
disciples. He says to them, "Follow me," and they leave everything and
follow Him. No more is necessary to make them members of His band. So,
no rite, no ceremony marks the choosing or appointing of the twelve
apostles, or bishops, as they would now be called. There is no laying on
of hands, no formal induction or installation into office, no clothing
them in peculiar vestments, or sacerdotal robes, or other visible
insignia of their office or rank. Nor are they given any authority or
pre-eminence over their fellow disciples. Nothing could have been more
foreign to Jesus' ideas than the establishment of a priestly hierarchy.
The instructions as to their preaching are of the simplest--"the kingdom
of heaven is at hand." No creeds, no theological dogmas are to be
impressed on their hearers. But the necessity of their doing good
works--healing the sick, etc.--is emphasized. With Jesus works always
were of more value than words. The admonition to travel simply, without
money or extra raiment, and to depend on the hospitality of the people
among whom they came, reminds us of the practice of the itinerant
missionaries of frontier days in our own country.

Matthew's account is the only one containing the verse: "Think not that
I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace but a sword"
(Matt. X:34). This has often been cited, warped from its context, as
meaning that Jesus sanctioned war as a means of spreading His religion.
But nothing is more contrary to the whole spirit of His teaching and
many express utterances. When His disciples would have Him call down
fire from heaven to consume those who would not receive Him, He "rebuked
them" and said: "For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives,
but to save them" (Luke IX:56). In this chapter from Matthew, Jesus is
predicting that the spread of His Gospel will set individual against
individual (even in the same family), and finally nation against nation,
and that, owing to the weakness of human nature, this would lead to
individual contests and to national contests. Results well justified His
prophecy. So long as the Christians were in the minority, they preached,
and, to some extent, practiced the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount.
But when they became the majority, the sword and torch and the fires of
the Inquisition were their favorite arguments in converting recalcitrant
heathen.

[29] Moderation was the keynote of Jesus' character. Excess in any
direction was contrary to His principles. He had no sympathy with either
the zealot or the ascetic. He condemned as well the faster and the
prohibitionist as the glutton and the wine-bibber. He was most
democratic in His daily intercourse with others. He dined one day with
publicans and sinners, and the next with a Pharisee, notwithstanding His
bitter antagonism to the Pharisees as a sect (Luke XI:37; XIV:1). This
moderation shows itself in the charity of His judgments of others, as in
the case of the woman taken in adultery (John VIII:3-11), the parable of
the Prodigal Son (Luke XV:11). "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Matt.
VII:1) and elsewhere. When He is asked to name the first great
commandment, He does not choose any of the ten stringent provisions of
the Old Testament, but expresses His ideas in the milder forms: To love
God, and to love thy neighbor as thyself (Matt. XXII:36-40; Mark
XII:28-31).

[30] The prophets of the Old Testament had long before the birth of
Jesus inveighed against the disposition among the Jews to magnify _acts
of worship_--religious rites and ceremonies--as pleasing to God and
indicative of holiness in the participant.

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?--saith the
Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed
beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
he goats."

"Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the
new moons and _Sabbaths_, the calling of assemblies; I cannot away with;
it is iniquity, even _the solemn meeting_. Your new moons and your
_appointed feasts_ my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am
weary to bear them."

"Learn to _do well_; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the
fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah I:11-17).

"Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands
of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, _the
fruit of my body for the sin of my soul_? He hath showed thee, O man,
what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly,
and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah VI:7, 8).

"For I desired mercy and not _sacrifice_; and the knowledge of God more
than burnt offerings" (Hosea VI:6).

But the Jews had not heeded the admonitions of their prophets, and, in
the time of Jesus, their religion, under the dominating influence of
those zealous laymen--the scribes and Pharisees--had become permeated
with the dry-rot of formalism. Prayers, fastings, rites and ceremonies
had become all important, like the "burnt offerings of bullocks," "the
blood of bullocks," the "incense" and "vain oblations" of earlier days.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of
mint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier matters of the
law, judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23). Their conception of
the Lord was that of the Mosaic times--a jealous Deity to be placated by
sacrifices, and whose favor was to be won by external worship, and not
by inward purity of heart. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter,
but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee,
cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside
of them may be clean also" (Matt. XXIII:25, 26).

The simple, unceremonial religion which Jesus taught, a living force
animating each act of one's daily life, nourished by secret prayers in
one's chamber, manifesting itself by unobtrusive acts of mercy, not by
public prayers, fastings and religious services, was the direct
antipodes of the ceremonial formalism then dominant among the Jews.
Jesus early recognized this antagonism, and lost no opportunity to
combat this, the greatest obstacle to the spreading of His ideas. He can
use no words too bitter in denouncing those whom He considers the
corrupters of the true worship of God (Matt. XXIII; Mark XII:38-40; Luke
XX:46, 47; XI:42-44). To persons deeply imbued with religious feeling,
hypocrisy is the cardinal sin. "Ye hypocrites" is His constant term of
reproach for the scribes and Pharisees.

Now, the observance of the Sabbath was the keystone in the arch of
formalism which the Pharisees had erected. They had filled the day with
religious ceremonies. They had surrounded it with minute restrictions
and prohibitions, so that even the healing of the sick on that day was
considered by them unlawful. Probably their objection to the disciples
picking and eating corn was not based so much on that fact, as on the
iniquity of Jesus and His disciples taking a pleasant walk through the
fields and country on the Sabbath. As Macaulay said of the Puritans,
they hated bear baiting, not so much because it gave pain to the bear,
as because it gave pleasure to the spectators.

This Sabbath was to Jesus a travesty on the true worship of His Father,
and met His instant and repeated condemnation. He intentionally and
openly violated its laws, and challenged the Pharisees to defend their
position. As in the case of prayer, He again defined His Father's
attitude as caring nothing for these outward observances. "I will have
mercy and not sacrifice" (Matt. XII:7). The weighty matters of the law
are "judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23). In the expressive
language of the Old Testament His "soul hateth" their Sabbaths and
appointed feasts and solemn assemblies. They were a "trouble" to Him and
He was "weary to bear them." "When ye make many prayers, I will not
hear" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 15). Jesus sums up His conception of the Sabbath
in one of His pregnant sentences, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not
man for the Sabbath" (Mark II:27; Luke VI:5).

If Jesus were on earth today, He would make our Sunday a day of cheerful
rest. Children would rejoice in it, learn to love it, instead of its
being to them (more formerly than now) a day of penance and gloom, with
their forced attendance on a distasteful Sunday school, to study creeds
and catechisms, not suited to their immature years. Attendance at
"church" would be a matter of minor importance, to be determined by each
one for himself. The desire to worship could be satisfied without these
public assemblies, for "where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII:20).

But the significant deliberation of the day, the only one important
before God, would be the marking it out as the day especially for the
doing of deeds of mercy. Much more righteous in the sight of the Lord
would be the man who had spent the day in hunting, fishing or other
innocent recreation, but yet had one good deed to his credit, than he
who had spent the whole day in religious exercises, and given his "tithe
of mint and anise and cummin," but had not helped, or comforted, or made
happier a single fellow human being. Jesus would say with the poet:

    "_Count that day lost, whose low descending sun
    Views from thy hand, no worthy action done._"

[31] Jesus had already told the disciples of His approaching death and
resurrection (Matt. XVI:21, 22; Mark VIII:31; Luke IX:22).

[32] Jesus probably spoke to His disciples in the veiled language so
often used by Him, since it is clear that His disciples, down to the
last days in Jerusalem, had not accepted the idea of His immediate
bodily death.

"But they understood not that saying and were afraid to ask Him" (Mark
IX:32).

"And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from
them, neither knew they the things that were spoken" (Luke XVIII:34; see
Matt. XXIV:3).

It is probable that up to the hour of the Crucifixion many of the
disciples still clung to the hope that Jesus would exert His miraculous
powers to confound His enemies and establish an earthly kingdom.

"They thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear" (Luke
XIX:11).

They quarreled among themselves as to who should have precedence in this
kingdom.

"And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be
accounted the greatest" (Luke XXII:24).

[33] None of these multitudes seem to have been on hand a few days later
to ask Jesus' release from Pilate (Matt. XXVII:15, 17, 22, 23).

[34] This cleansing of the temple is related by John as one of Jesus'
first acts, immediately after the marriage in Cana (John II:14-17).

[35] There is a marked difference between these latest utterances of
Jesus and His first preaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Then He was
enthusiastic, filled with the hope of converting the Jews, and
establishing His Father's spiritual kingdom on earth. Now He is
disappointed, realizing that His death is near, that His religious
teachings have been rejected by practically all of His people, and that
He will leave behind Him a mere handful of followers, few, if any, of
whom yet understand the true meaning of His religion. The spirit of the
Sermon on the Mount is love for one another, kindness active in
every-day life, charity for others' shortcomings, leniency in judging
and punishing offenders. But His later sayings abound in bitter censure
of the Pharisees and others who have thwarted His work, of denunciation
of all evil-doers, of promises of reward to His followers, and of
predictions of severe punishment for those who reject His teachings.

Thus in the Sermon on the Mount He says:

"Blessed are the merciful; for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt. V:7).

"Blessed are the peace-makers; for they shall be called the children of
God" (Matt. V:9).

"Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before
the altar and go thy way; first be reconciled with thy brother, and then
come and offer thy gift" (Matt. V:23, 24).

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him"
(Matt. V:25).

"But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. V:39).

"But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you" (Matt. V:44).

"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses" (Matt. VI:15).

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all
these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. VI:33).

"Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt. VII:1).

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote of thy brother's eye" (Matt.
VII:5).

"Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them; for this _is the Law and the prophets_"
(Matt:VII:12).

As to those who heard His sayings and did them not, He speaks no
stronger condemnation than to compare them to the foolish man who built
his house on the sand (Matt. VII:24-27).

Compare with these the following excerpts from His later preachings:

"Verily I say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the
kingdom of God before you" (Matt. XXI:31).

"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on
whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matt. XXI:44).

"Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take
him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt.
XXII:13,14).

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" (Matt. XXIII:13,
14, 15).

"Ye fools and blind" (Matt. XXIII:17, 23, 24).

"Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful
outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all
uncleanness" (Matt. XXIII:27).

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation
of hell?" (Matt. XXIII:33).

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth"
(Matt. XXIII:35).

"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days" (Matt. XXIV:19).

"Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other
left" (Matt. XXIV:40).

"And shall cut him asunder and appoint him his portion with the
hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt.
XXIV:51).

"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness; there shall
be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. XXV:30).

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
devil and his angels" (Matt. XXV:41).

[36] It is impossible for one not versed in the subtleties of Jewish
religious ceremonies to understand the references in the four Gospels to
the feast of unleavened bread and of the Passover. They do not seem to
correspond with the somewhat intricate ritual given in the Old Testament
(Ex. XII:1-20). If the Crucifixion occurred in the year A.D. 33, as the
authorities generally agree, then the feast of the Passover began on the
evening of Friday, the day after this supper and the day of the
Crucifixion. This agrees with John's statements (John XIII:1; XVIII:28;
XIX:14-31). But the other three Gospels speak of the supper on Thursday,
as being the eating of the Passover.

[37] This strife is also given by Luke as of an earlier date (Luke
IX:46). (See also Matt. XVIII:1; Mark IX:34; Mark X:35; Matt. XX:24).

[38] Mark tells of a "certain young man" who followed Jesus, until he
was driven away by the soldiers (Mark XIV:51, 52). He is not identified,
and apparently appears only at this place in the four Gospels.

[39] The motive of Judas in this transaction seems destined to remain an
unsettled controversy. Was he simply a traitor, seeking to sell his Lord
and Master for a price? Or was he a religious zealot, trying to force
Jesus' hand? It has been already noted that the apostles, even at this
late date, were expecting the immediate coming of Jesus' kingdom on
earth and the installation of themselves into the chief offices of that
kingdom (Luke XIX:11; XXII:24). Did Judas, in his supreme confidence in
his Master's supernatural powers, feel convinced that, if once a contest
were precipitated between the Pharisees and Jesus, the latter would
exert those powers and utterly confound His enemies?

The most inexplicable thing in the whole transaction is its utter
futility, both on the side of Judas and of the Pharisees also. On other
visits to Jerusalem, Jesus had kept His movements more or less secret
(John VIII:59; XI:54). But on this last visit there was not the
slightest attempt at concealment. His entry into Jerusalem was attended
by a great multitude, shouting and acclaiming Him (Matt. XXI:1-10; Mark
XI:1-10; Luke XIX:30-40). His cleansing of the temple was an open and
public act (Matt. XXI:12-14; Mark XI:15; Luke XIX:45, 46). Every day He
taught openly in the temple (Luke XIX:47; XXII:53). The chief priests,
elders and Pharisees were present at His teachings and argued with Him
(Matt. XXI:23; Mark XI:27; Luke XX:1). They had already employed spies
to follow Jesus in His preaching and note any seditious or heretical
utterances (Luke XX:20). Every night Jesus and His twelve apostles went
out to Bethany, coming back to Jerusalem in the morning, and the
movements of so numerous a company could not have been concealed (Matt.
XXI:17, 18, 20). Jesus must have been well-known in Bethany, both
because of His long friendship with the family of Lazarus, and because
of the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead (John XI:45; XII:9).
While in Bethany, Jesus and the apostles were entertained publicly at a
supper in Simon's house (John XII:2; Matt. XXVI:6). So far as an
identification of Jesus was concerned, or any assistance in making His
arrest, Judas' services were entirely useless to the Pharisees, and
there was no occasion for spending money on him. The most conclusive
evidence on this point is that of Jesus Himself. All three of the
synoptics agree that Jesus protested against a multitude with their
swords and staves coming out to take Him in the night-time, as though He
were a thief or a fugitive from justice. As He says, "I sat daily with
you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me" (Matt. XXVI:55;
Mark XIV:49; Luke XXII:53). According to John, who is considered the
most accurate of the evangelists on the events of this last week, Judas
did not kiss Jesus or make any other identification of Him. On the
approach of the band, Jesus comes forth and says, "Whom seek ye? They
answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And
Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them" (John XVIII:5). The
Pharisees seem to have had some trouble in procuring the proof of Jesus'
heretical sayings (Matt. XXII:15-16; Mark XII:13; Luke XI:54; Luke
XX:20; Matt. XXVI:60). If Judas had offered to furnish this evidence,
the bargain with the Pharisees would be understandable.

As to the pecuniary side of the transaction, Matthew is the only one who
states that a bargain was made for a definite sum of money. According to
the account of Mark and Luke, Judas volunteered his services, and the
Pharisees "promised to give him money." John does not mention any money
paid or to be paid, although he is especially bitter against Judas (John
VI:64, 70, 71; XII:6; XIII:2, 27). Now, Judas was the treasurer of the
apostles' company and carried the bag (John XIII:29; XII:6). If avarice
were his motive, it would seem strange that he would give up this post
and the possibilities of peculation which it offered, for the small sum
of money he would get from the Pharisees.

Moreover, the fact that, immediately after the conviction of Jesus,
Judas tendered back the money to the Pharisees, and, when they refused
it, cast it down in the temple, and went out and hanged himself, tends
strongly to support the theory that he was a misguided zealot (Matt.
XXVII:3-6).

Against this is the unanimous evidence of the Gospels that he was the
betrayer of Jesus, and that Jesus recognized and branded him as such.

[40] This gathering was presumably the Sanhedrim, the high council of
the Jews. It had jurisdiction to try and sentence Jews charged with
heresy--"corruptors," blasphemers of the temple, destroyers of the true
worship, etc. It could not, however, execute a sentence of death (John
XVIII:31). In such cases it was necessary that the sentence be confirmed
by the Roman tetrarch, procurator, or other governor of the country, and
the execution of the sentence be carried out by Roman soldiers.

[41] This was a trial for heredoxy under the Jewish law upon two
charges, one for blasphemy of the temple, the other for blasphemy of
God. Either, if proved, would warrant a sentence of death. The first was
very near the truth. The charge was, "I am able to destroy the temple of
God, and to build it in three days." Jesus' exact words were, "Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John II:19). The
Jews did not understand His hidden meaning that He meant the death of
His body and its resurrection in three days (John II:20, 21). The other
charge was in one sense true, for Jesus had spoken of Himself as the
_Son_ of God. But He had not used these words in the sense attributed to
Him by the Pharisees, that He was himself God, or the equal of God. But,
coupled with His failure to deny these charges, they formed a sufficient
legal basis, under the Jewish law, for His conviction and sentence.

[42] The high priest evidently shifted his ground of attack when he
brought Jesus before Pilate. The main charge here against Jesus was that
He had claimed to be king of the Jews, something that had not appeared
in the proceeding before the Sanhedrim. This was more of a political
than a heretical crime, and one more likely to arouse the suspicion and
hostility of the Romans. Jesus was entirely innocent of this crime, for
He had never claimed for Himself an earthly kingdom. This, and the
charges of heresy, which probably were also presented, did not make much
impression on Pilate. He evidently did not think that Jesus had done
anything deserving a sentence of death, and probably regarded the whole
matter as one of those vexatious religious quarrels among the Jewish
sectaries which were constantly arising to trouble the Roman governors
of Jewry, and in which they had no interest or sympathy with either side
of the controversy. But he found himself in a difficult position. This
demand for Jesus' sentence was backed by all of official Jewishdom, and
they presented His legal condemnation by the Sanhedrim. While Pilate was
not absolutely bound to approve this sentence of the Sanhedrim, yet his
refusal to do so would deeply offend the leaders of the Jewish people
and quite possibly involve him in serious trouble with the authorities
at Rome. Seeking a way out of this dilemma, he bethought himself of the
custom of freeing a prisoner at the feast of the Passover. He tried to
induce the multitude to demand the release of Jesus, and, if there had
been any difference in opinion, would undoubtedly have declared the vote
in favor of Jesus. But the people were unanimous in their demand for the
release of Barabbas. Then, only, he consented to confirm Jesus'
sentence, and attempted publicly to shift the moral responsibility for
his act to the Jewish populace.

[43] There seems to be some question as to whether Antipas was not
governor at this time, instead of Herod (Matt. II:19).

[44] This Annas (or Hanan) is supposed by some authorities to be the
"power behind the throne," the chief instigator of the proceedings
against Jesus.

[45] Pilate evidently inflicted this punishment--milder than death--in
the hope that it would pacify the Jews, and they would permit him to let
Jesus escape the extreme penalty of crucifixion.

[46] From this narrative it would seem that, for one night, the
sepulchre was unsealed and unguarded.

[47] It seems that it was a custom to give criminals this drink in order
to, in a measure, stupefy them and lessen the pains of the crucifixion.

[48] This was probably the usual custom, unless the criminal was too
weak to bear the burden.

[49] No two of these superscriptions on the cross exactly agree.

[50] None of the other Gospels mention Jesus' mother or any of the
apostles as being present at the Crucifixion, and all agree that the
women stood "afar off."

[51] These were precautions, probably usual, to ensure that the
criminals were really dead.

[52] These instructions are contrary to those given to His disciples in
His life-time. He told them expressly not to go to the Gentiles (Matt.
X:5) and said nothing about their baptizing either Jews or Gentiles. No
time or definite place is assigned for this last appearance of Jesus.

[53] Mark does not tell of any appearance of Jesus to the apostles in
Galilee.

[54] The name Cleopas does not appear in the list of the twelve apostles
(Matt. X:2-4).

[55] The story of the resurrection and ascension would have even less
chance of acceptance by an impartial tribunal, than that of the
miraculous conception, or of the birth at Bethlehem. The accounts in the
four Gospels, together with that in the Acts, are such a hopeless mass
of confusion and contradiction that scarcely a single fact can be
extricated, on which they all agree.

As to the time, the place, and the witnesses of the ascension, they are
entirely at variance.

Jesus had, in His lifetime, fixed Galilee as the place of meeting His
apostles after His rising from the dead (Matt. XXVI:32; Mark XIV:28). So
the angel, or the "young man," at the tomb tells the women that Jesus
has gone into Galilee, where His disciples should see Him, "as He said
unto you" (Matt. XXVIII:7; Mark XVI:7).

Now, Matthew's account is the only one of the five originals which says
anything about Jesus appearing to His disciples in Galilee. And,
according to Matthew, this was the only time and place that He did
appear to any one, except the two Marys (Matt. XXVIII:9, 10), and their
statements were not believed by the apostles (Mark XVI:11; Luke
XXIV:11).

According to Matthew, at a time not specified, Jesus appeared to the
eleven on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. XXVIII:16), "and when they saw
Him, they worshipped Him; _but some doubted_" (Matt. XXVIII:17). Now,
from this it is apparent: first, that Jesus did not appear in His
natural, earthly form, for then the eleven would at once have recognized
His identity; and, second, that we have no means of telling just how
many of the eleven would have testified to this being an appearance of
the true Jesus, since "some" doubted.

John's original Gospel warrants appearances of Jesus, first, to Mary
Magdalene, the other Mary not being with her (John XX:15, 16, 17);
second, an appearance on Sunday evening to the apostles, except Thomas
(John XX:19); third, an appearance eight days later to all the eleven
apostles (John XX:26). Nothing is said about any ascension.

John's Chapter XXI, which, as has been said, appears clearly to have
been a later addition to the original Gospel, relates an appearance of
Jesus in Galilee, which is materially different from that of Matthew.
The appearance is not on a mountain, but on the shores of the sea of
Tiberias, and, instead of the eleven apostles being present, there were,
at most, only seven, including Nathaniel of Cana (John XXI:2). All of
them have considerable trouble in recognizing Jesus (John XXI:4, 12).
Nothing is said by Jesus about baptizing, or preaching to, the Gentiles,
but, on the contrary, Jesus tells Peter to feed "my sheep," or "my
lambs" (John XXI:15, 16, 17). Nothing is said about any ascension of
Jesus into heaven.

The Gospels of Mark and Luke, the original Gospel of John, and the Acts,
all agree in fixing the after-death appearances and ascension of Jesus
in Jerusalem or its neighborhood (Luke XXIV:50; Acts I:12). Apparently
the apostles remained for some time in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion
(possibly for forty days, Acts I:3; II:1), until they separated and
"went forth and preached everywhere" (Mark XVI:20). In the Acts it is
said that Jesus "commanded" them to remain in Jerusalem, until the gift
of the Holy Ghost should be sent to them (Acts I:4).

It is evident, in all these accounts, that the apostles had never
understood, or had entirely forgotten, the predictions of Jesus in His
lifetime that He would rise from the dead (Matt. XVI:21; XVII:23; XX:19;
Mark VIII:31; IX:31; X:34; Luke IX:22; XVIII:33). They were not
expecting any resurrection. They were not waiting at the tomb for it to
occur, and, by the unanimous testimony of all the writers, they showed
the greatest surprise and incredulity at the first reports of Jesus'
appearance alive (Matt. XXVIII:17; Mark XVI:11, 13; Luke XXIV:11, 16,
37, 41; John XX:9, 14, 25).

Furthermore, it is also evident that Jesus, in these appearances, must
have assumed some form or shape different from His natural earthly body.
Otherwise His intimate friends and associates could not have been in
such uncertainty about recognizing His identity.

Thus Matthew says that when He appeared to the eleven "some doubted."
But if He had appeared in His natural form, how could any of the
apostles have doubted as to whether the apparition was He or some other
person?

According to Mark, the apostles questioned the accuracy of the report by
Mary and the two disciples that they had seen Jesus (Mark XVI:13, 14).

Luke relates that Jesus spent a considerable portion of one day with two
of the disciples, and joined them at their evening meal. But they did
not recognize Him until He blessed some bread, brake it, and gave to
them, and then "He vanished out of their sight" (Luke XXIV:13-31). On
His first appearance in the midst of the apostles, "they were terrified
and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." Even after He
showed them His hands and feet, their doubts were not dissipated, and,
although He ate a piece of fish and some honey comb, it is not
explicitly stated that this removed all their uncertainty (Luke
XXIV:36-43).

According to John, Mary Magdalene, who was well acquainted with Jesus in
His lifetime, when she saw this apparition, "knew not that it was
Jesus." She spoke to Him, "supposing Him to be the gardener." He gives
her a message to His disciples, and it is implied in the narrative that
she then recognizes Him as Jesus, although it is not explained how this
change came about (John XX:14-17). On His appearance to the apostles, He
shows them His hands and feet, as though that were necessary to confirm
their recognition of His identity. Thomas, apparently, will not trust to
the story of the other apostles; nor even to the personal appearance of
Jesus, until he has put his fingers into the prints on Jesus' hands and
feet (John XX:19-28). If Jesus had worn His earthly form these prints,
which the apostles had never before seen, could not have aided in His
identification.

The account in John, Chap. XXI, shows that the seven assembled at the
sea of Tiberias did not at first recognize Jesus, although one of them
was Thomas, who had already identified Him in Jerusalem. "But the
disciples knew not that it was Jesus" (John XXI:4). A little later it is
said: "And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou? Knowing
that it was the Lord" (John XXI:12). No explanation is given as to how
this knowledge finally came to them.

Out of this welter of confusion and contradictions, it is impossible to
select any one coherent, authoritative story. With equal warrant of
authority it may be asserted that He appeared to the apostles only in
Galilee (Matt.) or never in Galilee, but only in Jerusalem (Mark, Luke,
Acts); that Jesus' first appearance was to the two Marys (Matthew), or
was to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark, John), or that He did not appear to
them at all, but two men "in shining garments" gave them the message to
the apostles (Luke); that He made a special appearance to two of the
apostles (Mark, Luke), or that He did not make this appearance (Matthew,
John); that He never appeared to the apostles but once (in Galilee
according to Matthew, in Jerusalem, according to Mark and Luke), or that
He appeared to them twice in Jerusalem (John XX) and once in Galilee
(John XXI), or that He was with the apostles in Jerusalem for forty
days, apparently in frequent communication with them (Acts I).

As to the ascension, it either occurred at some indefinite time on some
unidentified mountain in Galilee and could be testified to by the
unspecified number of the eleven who did not "doubt" (Matt.); or it
(impliedly) occurred at some indefinite time on some unspecified shore
of the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee, and was witnessed only by the seven
(John XXI); or it occurred in Jerusalem at some unspecified time or
place, and, so far as appears, in the presence of no one (Mark XVI:19);
or it occurred at Bethany at some indefinite time in the presence of
some unspecified number of His disciples (Luke XXIV:50, 51); or it
occurred at least forty days after the Crucifixion on "the mount called
Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey," in the
presence of persons who are only identified as "they" (Acts I); or, so
far as the Gospel of John is concerned, even including Chapter XXI, it
could fairly be claimed that He did not know of any specific ascension.

While the exact date of the writing of the four Gospels and of the Acts
cannot be determined, yet, in any event, they must have been composed
when there were many living witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. If
such a stupendous miracle as the ascension had occurred shortly after
Jesus' death, it is inexplicable that these historians should not have
shown some practical unanimity as to the time, place and witnesses of
the event.

[56] "The attitude of slave-holders towards freedom in the abstract was
grotesque in its lack of logic; but the attitude of many other classes
of men, both abroad and home, towards it was equally full of a grimly
unconscious humor. The southern planters, who loudly sympathized with
Kossuth and the Hungarians, were entirely unconscious that their tyranny
over their own black bondsmen made their attacks upon Austria's
despotism absurd." Roosevelt's Life of Benton, American Statesmen
Series, p. 275.

[57] Compare his severe criticism of the abolition revolt from the Whig
party in 1844 with his own revolt from the Republican party in 1912.
Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 291.

[58] If this had been written after the Spanish war, he might, with
equal logic, have said the same thing of Porto Rico and the Philippines.

[59] It would be interesting if President Roosevelt had cited some
international controversies in which one nation did not claim that the
matter in dispute was "of great importance" and that there was no "doubt
as to which side was right."

[60] From the context he evidently means here any shadow or pretense of
title.

[61] If, as Mr. Roosevelt concedes, the war with Mexico was
unjustifiable, it is rather difficult to understand how the morals of
the people of the United States could have been improved by the
consciousness that they had unjustly slaughtered many thousands of
innocent Mexicans and robbed them of immense areas of their lands.

[62] It is apparent that Matthew uses the word "drinking" in the sense
of "drinking wine," and undoubtedly Luke uses the word "drink" in the
same sense. In all, or nearly all, instances in the four Gospels where
these words are used in connection with eating or fasting, they refer to
the drinking of wine. As to the words "wine," or "fruit of the vine,"
when used in the Gospels, meaning some unfermented liquid, the
undeviating practice of the early Christian churches in celebrating the
Holy Communion with actual wine, stamps this claim as too absurd to
merit discussion. Undoubtedly Peter, James, John, Paul and the other
founders of the infant churches knew and followed the example of Jesus
in prescribing wine as a part of this solemn ceremony. If the "universal
tradition of the church" is not to be believed on this point, of what
value is it on any other? It would be as sensible to claim that there
has never been any difference between Moslems and Christians in the use
of wine, because, in truth, the orthodox Christian was never authorized
to use anything but some unfermented drink that a Moslem might also have
used.




    Transcriber's notes:

    The following is a list of changes made to the original.
    The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.

    _Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being af the house of David (Luke II:4).
    _Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).

    like Judaea, and that it was taken at least ten years after
    like Judæa, and that it was taken at least ten years after

    [12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed", and,
    [12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and,

    and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1).
    and came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1).

    (Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII! XXIII; XXIV; XXV).
    (Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII; XXIII; XXIV; XXV).

    the children of God; whosover, therefore, shall humble himself
    the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself

    sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7.) When prayers are regarded
    sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded

    International Cyclopaedia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.
    International Cyclopædia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.

    of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food and amusement
    of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food and amusement.